< 


I 

<t 

•i 

i 

i. 
< 

t 

« 

^  PRINCETON.     N.     J.  xO 


Presented  by  Mr.  Samuel  Agnew  of  Philadelphia,  Pa. 


AgJiezv  Coll.  on  Baptism,  No. 


a,  I 


4^ 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Archive 

in  2011  with  funding  from 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


http://www.archive.org/details/baptismitsmodesuOOmass 


ITS 

MODE,  SUBJECTS  AP  DESIGN; 

ALSO, 

AN    ORAL   DISCUSSION 

BETWEEN 

REV.  JOHN  E.  MASSBY,  BAPTIST, 

AND 

KEY.  J.  D.  COULLING,  METHODIST, 

HEID  AT  8HI10H,  REAR  lYY  DBPOT,  ALBEMARLE  CO.,  YA.. 
From  the  10th  to  the  14th  of  July,  1860. 


'PKOVa   ALL   THINSS:   HOLD  FAST  THAT  TVHIOH  IS  GOOD. 


SHELDON    &    COMPANY,    PUBLISHERS^ 
No.   115  Nassau  Street, 

1861. 


%  *>  %  '■'■■■  "' 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


North  Garden.  Albemarle  Co.,  Va.,  ) 
October  26, 1859.  S 

Elder  J.  D.  CoullinG;: 

Dear  Sir — Several  persons  who  heard  your  sermons  on  Bap- 
tism, delivered  at  Mount  Moriah  a  few  days  past,  have  informed 
me  that  you  publicly  expressed  your  willingness  to  discuss  the 
points  of  difference  between  the  Churches  to  which  you  and  I  re- 
spectively belong,  upon  the  subject  of  Christian  Baptism,  with  a 
Baptist  minister. 

In  compliance  with  the  wish  of  many  friends,  who  have  heard 
you  preach  upon  the  subject  at  the  above-named  and  various 
other  places,  and  hoping  that  the  cause  of  truth  will  be  advanced 
by  a  public  interchange  of  our  views  upon  the  subject,  in  a  kind, 
courteous,  and  Christian  manner,  I  avail  myself  of  the  first  oppor- 
tunity, since  I  heard  of  your  proposal,  to  apprise  you  of  my  wil- 
lingness to  meet  you  in  discussion  at  such  time  and  place  as  may 
be  agreed  upon  by  us,  as  soon  as  the  terms  of  discussion  and  the 
points  to  be  discussed  shall  have  been  settled. 

Please  inform  me,  at  your  earliest  convenience,  whether  I  shall 
have  the  pleasure  of  meeting  you  in  discussion ;  and,  if  so,  state 
the  regulations  by  which  you  propose  that  we  shall  be  governed. 

Any  propositions  that  will  facilitate  the  settlement  of  prelimi- 
naries, will  be  kindly  received  and  considered. 

It  is  due  that  I  inform  you,  that,  upon  hearing  of  your  proposal, 
I  publicly  announced  my  willingness  to  discuss  with  you. 

Eespectfully  and  fraternally, 

John  E.  Massey. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


Charlottesville,  November  1,  1859. 
Elder  John  E.  Massey  : 

Bear  Sir — Yours  of  the  26th  ult.  was  received  the  28th,  about 
an  hour  before  I  started  for  an  appointment  in  the  valley  of  Vir- 
ginia.   I  returned  this  morning  and  hasten  to  reply. 

You  say  that  several  persons  who  heard  my  sermons  on  Bap- 
tism, informed  you  that  I  publicly  expressed  a  willingness  to  dis- 
cuss, &c.,  and  again  you  speak  of  a  discussion  as  my  "  proposal," 
&c.  This  information  seems  to  have  made  the  impression  on  your 
mind  that  I  iiave,  with  the  air  and  spirit  of  a  hiight-errantj 
thrown  down  the  gauntlet,  and  am  ready  for  a  tilt  at  any  one  who 
dares  to  take  up  the  glove.  If  I  have,  at  any  time,  or  in  any  place, 
publicly  or  privately,  challenged  controversy  on  this  subject,  I 
am  not  aware  of  it.  I  cannot  recall  anything  that  I  said  in  the 
pulpit  at  Mount  Moriah,  which  could  have  made  such  an  impression 
as  was  received  by  your  informers.  I  have  appealed  to  two  intel- 
ligent gentlemen  who  heard  me  the  first  day,  and  they  cannot  re- 
call anything  which  made  such  an  impression  on  their  minds,  and 
one  of  them  (not  a  member  of  any  church)  recalled  a  remark, 
which  confirms  me  in  the  opinion  that  I  have  been  misunderstood 
and  therefore  unintentionally  misrepresented.  The  position,  1 
think,  I  occupy  on  this  subject,  is  simply  this :  I  have  been,  at 
sundry  times,  requested  by  some  of  the  members  of  my  own  Church 
to  present  the  views  of  the  Church  on  the  points  of  difference  be- 
tween us  and  immersionists,  and  I  have  done  so,  plainly  and  em- 
phatically, but  I  think  courteously,  toward  those  from  whom  I 
difi'er.  I  have  never  intended  to  assail  immersionists,  unless  the 
statement  of  their  positions  and  arguments,  and  an  attempt  to  meet 
them,  can  be  regarded  an  assault. 

You  must  allow  me  to  say,  that  I  cannot  consent  to  be  held  re- 
sponsible for  all  the  misapprehensions  of  persons  who  hear  my 
discourses  upon  this  subject. 

Having  attempted  to  disabuse  your  mind  of  a  mistake,  which,  I 
think,  places  me  in  a  false  attitude  before  you,  and  which,  doubt- 
less, suggested  the  proposal  contained  in  your  note,  I  will  now  say, 
that  if  you  choose  to  renew  the  proposal,  without  reference  to 
what  you  have  been  informed  about  my  willingness  to  discuss  the 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


subject,  I  ^Yill  then  consider  the  matter  and  decide  that  simple  and 
unembarrassed  proposition. 

Very  respectfully  and  fraternally, 

Jas.  D.  Coulling. 


North  Garden,  Nov.  12,  1859. 
Elder  Jas.  D.  Coulling  : 

Dear  Sir — Absence  from  home  prevented  my  receiving  your 
favor  of  the  first  instant,  until  several  days  after  its  date,  and  then 
hearing  that  you  would  be  in  North  Garden  to-morrow,  I  deferred 
answering  it  till  now. 

I  can  but  feel  a  little  disappointed  at  the  contents  of  your  letter. 
You  say,  "  If  I  have,  at  any  time,  or  in  any  place,  publicly  or 
privately,  challenged  controversy  on  this  subject  [Baptism,]  I  am 
not  aware  of  it.  I  cannot  recall  anything  I  said  in  the  pulpit  at 
Mount  Moriah,  which  could  have  made  such  an  impression  as  was 
received  by  your  informers."  If  you  will  examine  my  note,  you 
will,  perhaps,  discover  that  you  have  misconstrued  my  language. 
I  did  not  say  you  had  '^  challenged  controversy,"  but  that  you, 
according  to  my  informers, ''  expressed  your  willingness  to  discuss," 
&c.,  and  that  this  "  willingness"  was  expressed  "  publicly." 

Perhaps  you  can  recall  something  which  transpired  after  you 
left  the  pulpit,  which  justified  the  impression  received  by  my  in- 
formers. If  you  cannot,  they  have  fallen  into  a  most  egregious 
mistake.  They  not  only  understood  you  to  "  express  your  willing- 
ness to  discuss,"  &c.,  but  to  name  some  of  the  conditions  upon 
which  you  would  engage  in  discussion. 

It  is  proper  to  state,  that  nothing  which  I  have  heard  has  made 
the  impression  upon  my  mind  that  ^'  you  expressed  your  willing- 
ness to  discuss,"  in  any  unkind  spirit  or  manner  :  nor  do  I  take  the 
slightest  exception  to  your  preaching  upon  Baptism  at  any  time 
or  place  you  choose.  I  not  only  admit  the  right,  but  believe 
it  the  duty  of  every  Ambassador  of  Christ  to  proclaim  freely  and 
fully  the  doctrines  of  the  Church  he  represents. 

You  say,  in  conclusion,  "  If  3-ou  choose  to  renew  the  proposal, 
without  reference  to  what  you  have  been  informed  about  my  wil- 
lingness to  discuss  the  subject,  I  will  then  consider  the  matter, 
and  decide  that  simple  and  unembarrassed  proposition." 


6  CORRESPONDENCE. 

I  could  not,  \nth  propriety;  under  the  circumstances,  address 
you  again  without  so  far  referring  to  the  past.  Having  thus  ex- 
plained the  past,  I  now  waive  all  further  reference  to  it  for  the 
present,  and  inform  you  that  I  am  not  only  willing,  but  desirous, 
to  discuss  with  you  the  points  of  difierence  between  the  Churches 
to  which  you  and  I  respectively  belong,  upon  the  subject  of  Chris- 
tian Baptism. 

Several  considerations  induce  me  to  renew  this  proposition. 

In  the  first  place,  though  I  have  not  preached  a  sermon  upon 
the  subject  of  Baptism  for  more  than  three  years,  I  consider  it 
obligatory  upon  us  to  impart  to  our  hearers  all  the  information  wc 
possess  upon  this,  as  upon  all  other  Gospel  subjects. 

In  the  second  place :  your  having  preached  not  less  than  twenty- 
Jive  sermons  upon  the  subject,  during  the  present  year,  if  I  have 
been  rightly  informed,  satisfies  me  that  you  fully  concur  with  me 
in  this  opinion,  and  that  you  are  well  posted  upon  the  subject. 

In  the  next  place,  I  believe  correct  information  will  more  likely 
be  imparted  by  a  presentation  of  both  sides  of  the  subject  at  the 
same  time.  And,  lastly,  the  high  position  you  occupy  in  your  own 
Church,  and  the  estimation  in  which  you  are  held  by  your  own 
people,  not  only  assure  me  that  you  are  considered  by  them  as 
fully  able  to  sustain  their  cause,  but  that  the  discussion  would,  on 
your  part,  at  least,  be  conducted  in  a  dignified,  kind,  courteous,  and 
Christian  manner. 

I  will  make  no  suggestion  as  to  time  or  place,  until  I  hear  your 
answer  to  the  "  simple  proposition.^^  If  you,  however,  choose  to 
make  any,  I  shall  be  glad  to  receive  them. 

Hoping  to  hear  from  you  at  your  earliest  convenience,  I  remain. 
Very  respectfully  and  fraternally, 

John  E.  Massey. 


Charlottesville,  Dec.  6,  1859. 
Elder  John  E.  Massey  : 

My  Dear  Sir — Yours  of  the  12th  ult.  was  received  about  dark 
on  the  day  before  I  started  to  the  late  Session  of  my  Conference, 
in  Lynchburg. 

While  there  I  was  unceasingly  engaged;  and  since  my  return 
my  time  has  been  closely  occupied  with  duties  imposed  on  me  as 


CORRESPONDENCE.  / 

the  Secretary  of  the  Conference.  I  am  thus  particular  to  assure 
you  that  my  silence  was  unavoidable,  and  not  intended  to  be  disre- 
spectful. 

I  accede  to  your  proposition  "  to  discuss  with  you  the  points  of 
difference  between  the  Churches  to  which  you  and  I  respectively 
belong,  upon  the  subject  of  Christian  Baptism."  I  shall  be  much 
obliged  to  you,  if  you  will  state,  distinctly,  the  issues  you  propose 
to  make,  that  I  may  be  prepared  to  meet  you  on  equal  ground. 
You  are  aware  of  the  advantage  one  may  have  by  raising  new 
issues  on  the  spur  of  the  occasion.  Please  be  definite  and  distinct 
in  stating  your  points. 

As  to  the  place  of  meeting,  I  propose  that  the  discussion  take 
place  at  Mount  Shiloh,  near  Ivy  Depot,  on  the  Central  Eailroad. 
I  name  this  place  because  it  is  convenient  to  us  both,  and  about  equi- 
distant from  Mount  Moriah  and  Mount  Ed,  therefore  easy  of 
access  to  the  members  of  both  Churches. 

As  to  the  time  :  I  can  meet  you  any  Tuesday,  Wednesday,  and 
Thursday,  after  the  25th  of  January,  1860. 

xls  to  the  terms  of  discussion,  if  I  understand  what  you  mean, 
you  have  happily  expressed  all  I  desire.  You  propose  that  the 
discussion  be  "  in  a  kind,  courteous,  and  Christian  manner."  This 
covers  all  the  ground  that  we  can  occupy  consistently  with  the 
character  of  gentlemen  and  Christians. 

Yours,  very  respectfully, 

Jas.  D.  Coulling. 


North  Garden,  Dec.  16,  1859. 
Elder  James  D.  Coulling  : 

Dear  Sir — Yours  of  the  6th  inst.  was  received  on  the  8th,  and 
would  have  been  answered  at  once,  but  for  imperative  duties 
which  have  claimed  my  whole  time  since  its  reception. 

Your  reasons  for  not  answering  my  last  sooner,  are  perfectly 
satisfactory.  Our  situations  being  similar — each  having  to  per- 
form a  large  amount  of  regular  ministerial  labor,  will  require  us 
to  exercise  mutual  forbearance. 

I  fully  agree  with  you  as  to  the  importance  of  having  the  issues 
between  us  distinctly  stated,  and  will  try  to  comply  with  your  re- 
quest.    I  desire  to  embrace  in  our  discussion  the  whole  ground  of 


8  CORRESPONDENCE. 

controversy  between  Baptists  and  Pedo-Baptists  upon  Christian 
Baptism,  and,  if  you  will  consent,  the  terms  of  admission  to  the 
Lord's  Supper. 

I  propose  this  addition  because  the  two  subjects  are  intimately 
connected — because  a  right  understanding  of  their  mutual  rela- 
tions is  of  great  importance,  and  because  it  will  enable  us  to  form 
an  equal  number  of  affirmative  and  negative  propositions,  so  that 
we  can  meet  on  perfectly  fair  and  equal  ground. 

Hoping  this  will  meet  your  approbation,  I  submit  the  following 
propositions,  and  ask  your  decision  upon  them.  I  will  try  to  so 
state  them  that  either  can  be  the  affirmant : 

1st.  The  Subjects  of  Baptism. 

Believers  are  the  only  Scriptural  subjects  of  Christian  Bap- 
tism.    I  affirm.     You  deny. 

Infants  are  Scriptural  subjects  of  Christian  Baptism.  You 
affirm.     I  deny. 

2d.  The  Action  of  Baptism. 

The  immersion  of  a  proper  subject  in  water,  in  the  name  of  the 
Holy  Trinity,  is  the  only  Apostolic  or  Christian  Baptism.  I  affirm. 
You  deny. 

Sprinkling,  or  pouring  water  upon  a  proper  subject,  in  the  name 
of  the  Holy  Trinity,  is  Apostolic  or  Christian  Baptism.  You 
affirm.     I  deny. 

3d.  The  Design  of  Baptism. 

Christian  Baptism  is  designed  to  show  the  faith  of  the  subject 
in  the  death,  burial,  and  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ,  as  the  pro- 
curing cause  of  his  pardon  and  salvation.     I  affirm.     You  deny. 

I  must  beg  you  to  state  your  own  views  of  the  design  of  Bap- 
tism as  the  converse  of  this  proposition. 

4th.  Terms  of  Admission  to  the  Lord's  Supper. 

None  but  those  who  have  received  valid  Christian  Baptism  have 
a  Scriptural  right  to  partake  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  I  affirm. 
You  deny. 

The  Scriptural  right  to  partake  of  the  Lord's  Supper  is  not  re- 
stricted to  those  who  have  received  valid  Christian  Baptism.  You 
affirm.     I  deny. 

I  am  willing  to  take  the  affirmative  of  either  the  1st  or  2d,  and 
the  3d  or  4th  of  these  propositions,  and  the  negative  of  the  other 


CORRESPONDENCE.  U 

two.  You  can  either  select  from  these  as  they  now  stand,  or  pro- 
pose such  changes  as  you  think  will  better  present  the  true  issues 
between  our  respective  Churches. 

•  I  make  no  objection  to  the  place  you  propose,  but  as  the  house 
cannot  possibly  accommodate  the  congregation  we  may  reasonably 
expect  to  meet,  it  will  be  necessary  to  defer  the  discussion  until 
the  weather  will  allow  us  to  meet  in  the  open  air.  I,  therefore, 
agree  that  Mount  Shiloh,  near  Ivy  Depot,  on  the  Virginia  Central 
Railroad,  be  the  place,  and  propose  Tuesday,  the  15th  of  May, 
1860,  as  the  time. 

I  submit  the  following  propositions  without  dwelling  upon  the 
reasons  for  them,  as  they  affect  us  equally,  and  seem  to  me  to  com- 
mend themselves. 

Each  shall  be  entitled  to  occupy  forty-five  minutes  in  his  open- 
ing address  upon  each  proposition,  and  thirty  minutes  alternately 
thereafter  imtil  we  shall  mutually  agree  to  discontinue  its  discus- 
sion. The  affirmant  having  the  closing  address,  but  not  to  intro- 
duce new  matter  in  it.  Each  shall,  during  the  discussion,  recog- 
nize the  other  as  a  Christian  brother^  and  avoid  personalities,  or 
unkind  remarks.  All  books  introduced  shall  be  free  to  each.  That 
we  unite  in  employing  a  competent  and  reliable  stenographer,  who 
shall  report  fairly  and  fully  all  that  is  said  by  us,  subject  simply 
to  verbal  correction. 

That  the  discussion  be  published  in  such  form  and  numbers  as 
shall  be  agreed  upon  by  us  hereafter,  at  our  equal  expense — one 
half  of  the  profits,  if  any,  after  paying  all  expenses,  to  be  appro- 
priated by  each  of  us  to  such  object  or  objects  as  we  may  select. 

I  also  propose  that  each  of  us  select  a  man,  and  these  two  a 
third,  who  shall  act  as  moderators,  pr^erving  order,  and  regula- 
ting the  time,  &c.,  of  speaking.  The  third  man  should  not  be  a 
member  of  any  Church,  The  other  two  may  or  may  not  be  as 
you  prefer. 

I  have  written  hastily  and  may  not  have  stated  clearly  all  that 
is  necessary.  Please  supply  any  omission  on  my  part,  and  pro- 
pose whatever  else  you  think  desirable  to  render  the  discussion 
both  pleasant  and  profitable. 

Very  fraternally  and  respectfully, 

John  E.  Massey. 
1 


10  CORRESPONDEKCE. 

Charlottesville^  January  10,  1860. 
Elder  John  E.  Massey  : 

My  Dear  Sir — Yours  of  the  16th  ult.,  came  duly  to  hand,  and 
its  contents  have  been  maturely  considered.  Absence  from  home, 
in  addition  to  my  official  duties,  has  caused  a  delay  longer  than 
I  intended  or  desired.  I  must  throw  myself  on  your  forbearance. 
I  have  no  objection  to  debate  any  one  of  the  points  you  have 
stated.  If  any  alteration  should  be  made,  I  would  only  suggest  a 
different  arrangement.  The  design  of  Baptism,  involving,  as  it 
does,  its  nature,  is  logically  the  tirst  in  order;  then,  the  mode  of 
its  administration;  next,  the  proper  subjects;  and  finally,  the 
effects  of  Baptism,  including  the  privileges  to  which  it  entitles  its 
recipients.  But  I  confess  I  regard  this  a  very  unimportant  point, . 
find  will  freely  acquiesce  in  the  arrangement  of  the  subject  you 
have  made.  Perhaps  it  is  merely  a  matter  of  taste,  upon  which 
no  stress  should  be  laid.  . 

You  must  permit  me  to  decline  assuming  the  affirmative  of 
either  or  any  of  the  propositions  you  state.  My  reasons  for  de- 
clining are  : 

1.  You  have  no  right  to  challenge  me  to  a  controversy,  and 
then  call  on  me  to  take  the  affirmative  upon  any  point. 

2.  My  views  of  the  issues  you  have  presented  for  discussion 
are  such,  that  I  am  not  disposed  to  complain  of  you,  or  of  your 
church,  for  differing  from  me  and  my  Church,  and  therefore  I  de- 
cline raising  any  point  of  debate  upon  the  subject. 

3.  I  have  never  acted  aggressively  toward  your  Church,  and  I 
have  no  intention  of  doing  so.  I  cannot  be  induced  to  assume 
such  a  position  until  my  views  upon  the  ordinance  of  Baptism  un- 
dergo a  change.  ^ 

4.  If  there  is  any  advantage  in  sustaining  the  affirmative,  you 
are  entitled  to  it ;  if  any  disadvantage,  you  have  no  right  to  im- 
pose it  on  me. 

5.  My  position  is  one  of  self-defence,  and  shall  be  purely  such. 
I  am  perfectly  willing  to  take  issue  with  you  (because  you  desire 
it)  on  the  following  points,  you  affirming  : 

1.  That  "  Believers  are  the  only  Scriptural  subjects  of  Christian 
Baptism." 

2.  That  "  The  immersion  of  a  proper  subject  in  water,  in  the 


CORRESPONDENCE.  11 

name  of  the  Holy  Trinity,  is  the  only  apostolic  or  Christian  Bap- 
tism."' 

3.  Tliat  "  Christian  Baptism  is  designed  to  show  the  faith  of  the 
subject,  in  the  death,  burial,  and  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ,  as 
the  procuring  cause  of  his  pardon  and  salvation." 

4.  That  '•  None  but  those  who  have  received  valid  Christian 
Baptism  have  a  Scriptural  right  to  partake  of  the  Lord's  Supper." 

We  are  agreed  as  to  the  place  of  discussion.  I  am  afraid  the 
16th  of  May  will  be  too  soon,  to  secure  comfort  in  the  open  air. 
The  13th  of  June,  four  weeks  later,  will  perhaps  be  more  pro- 
pitious. I  would  prefer  a  longer  time  than  forty-five  minutes  to 
discuss  each  point.  But  this  can  be  arranged  when  we  meet.  I 
have  no  objection  to  the  moderators,  and  will  unite  with  you  in 
their  selection.  Pardon  me  for  declining  to  employ  a  reporter.  I 
hardly  think  I  shall  say  anything  worthy  of  publication,  and  I  am 
not  in  pecuniary  circumstances  to  incur  the  expense  of  such  a 
publication. 

Very  fraternally  and  respectfully, 

Jas.  D.  Coulling. 


North  Garden,  January  24,  1860. 
Elder  Jas.  D.  Coulling: 

Bear  Sir — On  my  return  home,  after  ten  days'  absence,  I  found 
your  favor  of  the  10th  inst.,  and  avail  myself  of  the  first  opportu- 
nity to  answer  it. 

When  I  received  your  second  letter,  I  considered  it  settled  that 
we  should  have  a  perfectly  fair  discussion  upon  the  subject  of 
Christian  Baptism.  In  my  last  to  you,  I  endeavored  to  bo  state 
the  issues  between  us,  that  we  could  clearly  understand  the  points 
to  be  discussed,  and  meet  upon  perfectly  fair  and  equal  ground. 
Self-respect — respect  for  the  Church  to  which  I  belong — the  cause 
in  which  I  am  engaged — and  for  the  truth,  as  it  is  in  Jesus,  forbid 
my  seeking  an  advantage  in  the  arrangements  for  such  a  discus- 
sion, or  even  receiving  one  if  ofiered  me. 

I  most  sincerely  believe  that  the  doctrines  of  the  Baptist  denom- 
ination, upon  the  subject  of  Baptism,  are  the  doctrines  of  the  Bible 
upon  that  subject.  I  accord  to  you  the  same  conscientious  belief 
with  regard  to  the  doctrines  of  your  denomination.     Hence,  I  sup- 


12  CORRESPONDENCE. 

posed  it  fair  to  conclude  that  each  would  earnestly  desire  that 
truili — Bible  truth — would  triumph,  let  it  be  on  whichsoever  side. 
I  solemnly  declare  such  to  be  my  wish.  I  prefer  sustaining  a 
thousand  defeats,  if  I  am  in  error,  to  being  victorious  over  truth, 
or  triumphing  by  any  other  means  than  a  fair  presentation  of  it. 
The  questions  between  us  are  not  questions  of  our  personal  skill, 
or  comparative  ability  in  debate.  They  are  questions  as  to  what 
the  Bible  teaches  upon  the  issues  proposed.  How  we  can  meet 
upon  equal  ground,  and  conduct  a  fair  and  profitable  discussion, 
while  you  occupy  yomp  present  position,  I  cannot  see ;  and  I  can- 
not avoid  feeling  greatly  surprised  that  you  claim  such  a  position. 
You  say  your  "position  is  one  of  self-defence,  and  shall  be  purely 
such.^^  TFAo,  my  dear  sir,  has  assailed  you  ?  or  intends  to  assail 
you? 

I  hope  to  discuss  with  you,  if  you  will  meet  me  fairly  (which  I 
confess  your  last  letter  causes  me  to  doubt),  but  I  assure  you  I 
have  no  thought  of  assailing  any  man,  or  body  of  men.  The  rea- 
sons you  assign  for  not  taking  the  affirmative  of  any  proposition, 
and  the  manner  in  Avhich  you  speak  of  my  challenging  you  "  to 
controversy,"  make  it  necessary  for  me  to  refer  to  the  origin  of 
this  correspondence,  although  in  my  second  letter  I  waived,  for 
the  time,  all  further  reference  to  it,  and  hoped  not  to  be  under  the 
necessity  of  referring  to  it  again.  I  have  preached  more  than  six 
years  in  this  county,  and  have  preached,  I  think,  but  three  ser- 
mons upon  Baptism  in  it.  To  those  who  heard  those  sermons,  and 
who  hear  me  Sabbath  after  Sabbath,  I  can  safely  appeal,  to 
defend  me  against  the  charge  of  assailing  other  denominations, 
should  such  a  charge  be  made.  You  have,  I  think,  been  in  the 
county  but  little  more  than  two  years.  Durin^;  this  time,  you 
have,  I  learn,  preached  not  less  than  twenty-six  elaborate  sermons 
upon  Baptism,  requiring,  on  some  occasions,  two  days  for  their  de- 
livery. 1  do  not  at  all  complain  of  this,  but  merely  state  the  fact, 
by  way  of  explaining  our  positions.  On  the  second  day  that  you 
preached  upon  the  subject,  at  Mount  Moriah,  you  announced,  pub- 
licly from  the  pulpit,  that  you  were  willing  to  discuss  the  subject  of 
Baptism  with  any  mar,  upon  fair  Christian  principles,  upon  certain 
conditions.  These  conditions  were,  first,  no  personalities  must  be 
used  ;  secondly,  you  would   select  a  man,  the  opposite   party  one. 


CORPxESPONDENCE.  13 

and  these  two  a  third,  neither  of  whom  should  belong  to  any 
church,  and  that  the  three  should  preside  as  moderators.  (I  make 
these  statements  upon  perfectly  reliable  authority.) 

You  certainly  could  not  have  expected  otherwise  than  that  some 
Baptist  minister  would  be  solicited  to  meet  you.     That  I  was  se- 
lected, I  attribute  to  the  simple  fact  that  I  was  pastor  of  the  two 
nearest  Baptist  churches  to  Mount  Moriah.    How  you  can  reconcile 
the  position  you  now  occupy,  with  these  facts,  I  must  leave  you  to 
explain.     If  you  consider  your  doctrines   defensible,  and  yourself 
able  to  defend  them,  you  surely  cannot  refuse  to  meet   me  upon 
equal  ground,  and  discuss  the  issues  fairly.     If  we  cannot  agree 
upon  the  propositions  to  be  discussed,  and  the   arrangements  for 
their  discussion,  I  am  willing  to  unite  with  you  in  the  selection  of 
a    committee,  to  whom  the  whole  shall  be  submitted,  with  the 
single  restriction  that  they  shall  arrange  for  us  to  meet  upon  equal 
ground,  and  have  a  full  and  fair  discussion  of  the  issues  joined. 
I  prefer  the  following  order  : 
1st.  The  mode  or  action. 
2d.  The  subjects. 
3d.  The  design. 

4th,  The  Lord's  Supper.  ^ 

You  may  select  any  two,  and  I  will  take  the  others.  I  cannot 
withdraiu  my  proposition  to  employ  a  reporter,  but  as  you  present 
a  pecuniary  reason  for  not  uniting  in  employing  him,  I  will  re- 
move that  objection  by  assuming  the  entire  pecuniary  responsi- 
bility, provided  you  will  unite  with  me  in  his  selection,  and  will 
relinquish  all  claim  upon  his  work  after  you  shall  have  made  such 
verbal  corrections,  as  proposed  in  my  last. 

The  place  being  settled,  I  adopt  your  suggestion  as  to  the  change 
of  time,  and  agree  to  commence  the  discussion  on  Tuesday,  the 
12th  of  June  next.  You  agree  to  unite  with  me  in  the  selection 
of  moderators,  but  do  not  say  whether  they  shall  be  members  of 
any  church  or  not.  I  hope  your  next  will  settle  all  the  points 
necessary  to  be  settled,  to  insure  such  a  discussion  as  was  first  an- 
ticipated. 

Hoping  to  hear  from  you  at  an  early  day,  I  remain, 
Very  fraternally  and  respectfully, 

John  E.  Massey. 


14  CORRESPONDENCE. 

Charlottesville,  Feb.  2,  I860. 
Elder  John  E.  Massey  : 

3Iy  Dear  Sir  —  You  must  havo  greatly  misapprehended  my 
last,  or  you  would  never  have  made  such  protestations  of  sincerity, 
or  such  professions  of  loyalty  to  the  doctrines  of  your  Church. 
I  regret  that  you  thought  me  capable  of  implying  a  doubt  upon 
such  points.  Your  remarks  on  my  assertion,  that  "  my  position  is 
one  of  self  defence,"  is  a  great  waste  of  sympathy,  resulting,  also, 
I  think,  from  a  misunderstanding  of  my  language.  I  would  hardly 
think  it  worth  while  to  say  that  I  would  defend  myself  from  a  per- 
sonal assault,  and  would  doubt  the  courage  or  capacity  of  the  man 
who  would  trouble  a  stranger  with  such  an  assurance.  You  will, 
perhaps,  better  understand  what  I  meant,  before  the  close  of  this 
communication.  You  say:  **'How  we  can  meet  upon  equal 
grounds,"  etc.,  ctt/",  "I  cannot  see;''  you  are  ''surprised"  that  I 
"  claim  such  a  position."  Then,  after  reciting  what  you  regard 
the  facts  in  the  case,' you  say,  "  How  you  can  reconcile  the  position 
you  now  occupy  with  these  facts,  I  must  leave  you  to  explain.  A 
very  easy  matter,  I  think.  What  the  facts  you  state  have  to  do 
with  the  mode  of  debate,  I  cannot  see.  If  you  were  censured  for 
proposing  the  discussion,  you  might  seek  your  vindication  in  such 
facts ;  but  I  humbly  conceive  they  do  not  affect  the  present  issue. 
The  facts  in  the  case,  which,  to  my  mind,  assign  us  our  several  po- 
sitions, you  have  altogether  overlooked.  You  proposed  the  discus- 
sion. I  accepted  the  proposition,  and  requested  you  to  state  the 
issues.  You  made  those  issues  frankly  and  plainly :  but  they  are 
severally  and  collectively  a  distinct  dissent  from  the  usages  and 
doctrines  of  my  Church.  They  are  allegations  in  which  you  deny 
that  my  church  is  Scriptural.  It  is  sheer  justice  to  your  common 
sense  to  assume  that  you  would  make  no  allegations  that  you 
could  not  sustain.  But  (and  I  only  follow  your  own  example),  if 
you  find,  upon  more  mature  thought,  that  you  have  undertaken 
more  than  you  can  accomplish;  if  you  will  let  me  know  which  of 
the  issues  you  most  dread,  I  will  assume  the  affirmative  of  thoso 
points,  and  thereby  relieve  you.  You  can  certainly  see  how  anom- 
alous my  position  must  be  if  I  assume  the  affirmative  of  any  alle- 
gation made  against  me.  My  position  could  not  have  surprised 
you  more  than  your  proposition  to  me  to  take  the  affirmative  sur- 


CORRESPONDENCE.  15 

• 
prised  me.  My  position  is  so  evidently  defensive  that  you  cannot 
avoid  feeling  it  yourself;  and.  in  your  very  effort  to  induce  me  to 
change  my  position,  you  unintentionally  endorse  my  judgment,  by 
saying,  "  If  you  consider  your  doctrines  defensible  and  yourself 
able  to  DEFEND  THEM,''  ctc.  I  might  say  much  more  upon  this 
point,  hut  I  desist.  Let  me  present  another  view  of  the  subject. 
"When  we  appear  before  an  audience  upon  the  issues  you  propose 
to  debate,  what  will  be  the  several  positions  we  will  occupy? 
You  will  stand  up,  an  accredited  member  and  minister  of  the 
Church  of  Christ,  endorsed  as  such  by  pedobaptist  standards,  and 
entitled  to  all  the  privileges  of  church  membership ;  while  I  will 
be  denied,  by  all  the  standards  of  Immersionists,  any  Scriptural 
title  to  any  of  the  privileges  of  church  membership,  and  will  stand 
there  to  debate  issues  which  not  only  imply  that  much,  but  which, 
if  sustained,  will  place  me  without  the  pale  o%the  Church ;  and 
all  I  can  hope  to  do  will  be  to  prove  a  title  to  a  position  conceded  to 
you  in  advance.  If,  then,  there  is  any  advantage  (which  is  a  ques- 
tion of  circumstances)  in  occupying  the  defensive,  will  "even  that 
place  me  on  a  level  with  you  ?  I  concede  to  yon  as  much  sincerity 
in  the  view  of  the  subject  you  have  taken  as  I  claim  for  myself. 
I  have  carefully  considered  all  you  say  in  your  last.  Now,  I  request 
you  to  consider  carefully  the  view  I  have  taken ;  and  if,  after  you 
shall  have  looked  upon  the  subject  from  both  stand-points^  you 
stijl  think  that  my  present  position  places  you  in  any  way  ab  a 
disadvantage,  or  that  it  will  L^  more  pleasant  to  you,  I  will  cheer- 
fully yield  my  position ;  and  you  will  please  frame,  in  your  own 
language,  the  affimative  positions  you  wish  me  to  sustain,  and  I 
will  then  meet  you  on  your  own  ground.  I  not  only  do  not  desire 
an  advantage,  but  I  am  unwilling  to  place  you  in  a  position  the 
least  unpleasant ;  and,  if  you  desire  more,  more  shall  be  con- 
ceded if  possible. 

You  seem  to  have  been  under  the  impression,  when  you  last 
wrote,  that  I  implied  more  than  I  expressed.  I  have  alluded  to 
some  of  these  impressions  in  the  commencement  of  this  letter. 
Those  who  know  me  best  know  that  I  do  not  often  insinuate.  I 
generally  try  to  say  what  I  mean.  I  will  give  you  an  instance. 
The  only  thing  I  have  disliked  in  our  correspondence  is  your  repe- 
tition of  what  you  said  in  your  first,  and  which  I  disclaimed,  and 


16  CORRESPONDENCE. 

you  "  waived.'^  I  had  a  right  to  assume  that  when  you  waived  it, 
you  acted  in  good  faith ;  and,  under  that  impression,  I  acceded  to 
your  proposal.  What  shall  I  now  think?  That  it  was  a  mere 
ruse  to  get  me  into  a  debate — that  secured,  you  now  throw  off 
the  disguise  ?  Or  that,  pressed  for  an  argument,  you  thoughtlessly 
pressed  into  your  service  a  subject  you  will  regret  having  men- 
tioned, when  you  think  of  it  ?  I  will  trouble  you,  if  you  please, 
for  the  names  of  those  upon  whose  "  reliable  authority"  you  '•'  make 
these  statements."     I  have  a  right  to  their  names. 

I  do  not  think  it  would  become  me  to  interfere  in  any  way  with 
the  selection  of  a  reporter.  If  I  am  allowed  to  make  verbal  altera- 
tions in  that  part  of  the  report  attributed  to  me,  it  will  be  the  only 
courtesy  that  I  can,  with  self-respect,  accept.  That  whole  matter 
must  remain  in  your  hands.  I  did  not  say  whether  the  moderators 
should  "  be  mero^rs  of  any  church  or  not."  I  did  not  think  it 
important.  My  idea  was,  and  still  is,  that  when  we  reach  the  place 
of  debate,  you  can  select  some  gentleman  present,  and  I  another  ; 
those  two,  a  third.  I  would  prefer  that  all  three  should  be  non- 
professors,  but  I  aiTi  perfectly  willing  to  leave  it  to  your  judgment 
to  select  all  three.  You  know  more  about  the  citizens  of  the 
county  than  I  do.  I  will  do  anything  that  will  be  agreeable.  I 
have  omitted  the  notice  of  several  things  in  your  last,  lest  my  letter 
should  be  too  much  lengthened.  I  think  I  have  presented  the 
points  most  important  to  the  subject  directly  before  us,  though  I 
have  by  no  means  exhausted  those  points.  Allow  me  to  say  that  I 
have  determined  to  act  upon  the  Golden  Rule:  '"As  ye  would 
that  men  should  do  to  you,  do  ye  also  to  them."  In  this  instance  I 
should  feel  that  I  compromised  my  cause,  if  I  resorted  to  any 
thing  even  seemingly  unfair. 

Very  respectfully  and  fraternally  yours, 

Jas.  D.  Coulling. 


North  Garden,  Feb.  7,  1860. 
Elder  J.  D.  Coulling  : 

Dear  Sir — I  must  ask  you  to  excuse  me  from  replying  to  a 
portion  of  your  letter  of  the  2d  inst.,  as  my  former  correspondence, 
I  conceive,  explains  itself 

I  am  sorry  my  last  communication  contained  anything  you  dis- 


CORRESPONDENCE.  17 

like.  If,  however,  I  need  any  justification  for  that  portion  of  it 
which  is  objectionable  to  you,  you  have  kindly  furnished  it.  You 
say,  in  your  last,  "  If  you  were  censured  for  proposing  the  discus- 
sion, you  might  seek  your  vindication  in  such  facts.''  In  yours  of 
the  10th  ult.,  to  which  my  last  was  a  reply,  you  say,  ''  You  have  no 
right  to  challenge  me  to  controversy,  and  then  call  on  me  to  take 
the  affirmative  upon  any  point."  If  you  cannot  see  that  you  did 
the  very  thing  which  you  concede  would  justify  me  in  restating 
the  facts  which  led  to  this  correspondence,  I  despair  of  making  it 
obvious  to  you. 

I  am  sure  I  need  do  no  more  to  satisfy  you  that  my  waiving,  for 
the  time,  further  reference  to  what  you  said  at  Mount  Moriah,  and 
then  restating  it,  when  you,  in  my  opinion,  made  it  absolutely  neces- 
sary for  me  to  do  so,  was  not  "  a  mere  ruse,'''  than  to  ask  you 
calmly  to  review  all  that  has  passed  between  us;  May  I  not  ask, 
with  equal  propriety,  if  your  declining  to  discuss,  in  your  first 
letter,  unless  I  would  renew  the  proposal  without  reference  to 
what  I  had  been  informed  about  your  willingness  to  discuss,  was 
"  a  mere  ruse''  to  place  you  on  the  defensive,  and  thus  secure  you 
an  advantage  as  the  challenged  party  ?  I  do  not  say  it  was,  but  I 
do  say  the  facts  in  the  case  lead  more  readily  to  this  conclusion 
than  to  the  one  you  seem  to  have  drawn. 

When  I  first  wrote  to  you,  accepting  what  I  understood  to  be  a 
challenge  from  you  to  Baptist  ministers  generally,  I  never  once 
thought  of  my  position  as  merely  a  defensive  one  ;  nor  did  I,  when 
renewing  the  proposal,  suppose  you  would  consider  your  position 
such. 

It  has  been  from  the  first,  and  still  is  my  desire,  that  we  enter  the 
discussion  on  perfectly  equal  ground  in  all  respects.  In  every  prop- 
osition I  have  made  I  have  sought  so  to  make  it  that  eack  would 
be  equally  affected  by  it.  I  have  requested  you  more  than  once  to 
make  any  proposition  you  thought  desirable,  but  regret  to  find  that, 
with  the  exceptions  as  to  time  and  place,  you  have  made  none. 

You  say,  in  your  last :  "  You  made  the  issues  frankly  and  plainly, 
but  they  are  severally  and  collectively  a  distinct  dissent  from  the 
usages  and  doctrines  of  my  Church."  '-  You  can  certainly  see  how 
anomalous  my  position  must  be  if  I  assume  the  affirmative  of  any 
allegation  made  against  me."     I  will  not  attempt  a  description  of 


18  CORRESPONDENCE. 

the  profound  astonishment  which  these  statements  and'those  con- 
nected with  them  produced  !  Let  me  re-state  the  propositions,  some 
of  which  I  expected  you  to  affirm. 

1st.  Sprinkling,  or  pouring  water  upon  a  proper  subject,  in  the 
name  of  the  Holy  Trinity,  is  Apostolic  or  Christian  Baptism. 

2d.  Infants  are  Scriptural  subjects  of  Christian  Baptism. 

3d.  (Not  knowing  your  views  of  the  design  of  Baptism,  I  asked 
you  to  form  your  own  proposition  on  this  point.) 

4th.  The  Scriptural  right  to  partake  of  the  Lord's  Supper  is  not 
restricted  to  those  who  have  received  valid  Christian  Baptism. 

Are  these  propositions  "  severally  and  collectively  a  distinct  dis- 
sent from  the  usages  and  doctrines  of  your  Church  ?" 

When  I  offer  that  you  may  select  any  two  of  these  as  they  are 
stated,  or  make  suak  changes  in  them  as  will  more  fully  express 
"  the  usages  and  doctrines  of  your  Church,"  am  I  asking  you  to 
^'  assume  the  affirmative  of  any  allegation  made  against  you  ?" 
Do  these  allegations  deny  that  your  Church  is  Scriptural  ? 

The  point  agreed  upon  between  us  is,  if  I  rightly  understand, 
that  we  discuss,  at  Mount  Shiloh,  near  Ivy  Depot,  commencing  on 
Tuesday,  the  12th  of  June  next,  the  points  of  difference  between  the 
Churches  to  which  we  respectively  belong,  upon  the  mode,  sub- 
jects, and  design  of  Baptism,  and  the  terms  of  admission  to  the 
Lord's  Supper.  You  can  frame  your  own  propositions  so  as  to  ex- 
press "  the  usages  and  doctrines  of  your  Church"  upon  any  two  of 
these  points,  and  assume  the  affirmative  of  them.  I  will  frame 
propositions  upon  the  other  two  expressive  of  the  usages  and  doc- 
trines of  my  Church,  and  assume  the  affirmative  of  them;  each 
communicating  his  propositions  to  the  other.  If  any  advantage 
attaches  to  either  affirmative  or  negative,  each  will  in  turn  enjoy 
it.  If  any  disadvantage,  each  will  suffer  it  equally.  These  points 
once  settled,  each  will  understand  both  his  own  and  his  competitor's 
postition,  and  can  properly  address  himself  to  the  work.  If  you 
will  state  your  propositions  in  your  next,  I  will  at  once  state  mine, 
and  we  shall  be  able  to  bring  all  the  arrangements  to  a  close. 

My  reason  for  wishing  you  to  unite  with  me  in  the  selection  of  a 
reporter  is,  that  he  may  be  entirely  acceptable  to  you  as  well  aa  to 
me. 
I  cheerfully  give  you  the  names  of  those  upon  whose  authority 


CORRESPONDENCE.  19 

I  stated  what  you  said  at  Moiint  Moriali :  Col.  John  Jones,  Major 
Will.  H.  Joucs,  and  Mr.  Joshua  W.  Abell  of  my  Church,  and  Mr. 
Granville  Owens  of  yours.  Some  of  these  have  informed  me  that 
they  can  give  many  more  names  if  necessary. 

I  agree  that  the  moderators  shall  all  be  non-professors,  and  will 
notify  you  of  the  one  I  select  as  soon  as  I  make  a  selection.     I,  of 
course,  shall  select  hut  one.    Hoping  to  receive  a  definite  decision, 
upon  the  points  submitted,  at  your  earliest  convenience, 
I  remain,  very  respectfully  and  fraternally, 

John  E.  Massey. 


Chaklottesville,  Feb.  17,  1800. 
Elder  John  E.  Massey: 

Dear  Sir — Yours  of  the  7th  was  duly  received.  It  will  be  better 
perhaps,  to  cease  all  debate  upon  unimportant  preliminaries, 
and  keep  only  to  the  main  object ;  I  will,  therefore,  proceed  at 
once  to  comply  with  the  request  contained  in  your  last.  On  the 
12th  of  June,  Providence  permitting,  I  will  meet  you  at  Mount 
Shiloh,  and  debate  with  you  the  points  of  difference  between  our 
respective  Churches,  and  will  then  and  there  try  to  maintain  the 
following  propositions,  viz.  : 

1st.  Sprinkling  or  pouring  water  upon  a  proper  subject,  in  the 
name  of  the  Holy  Trinity,  is  as  valid  and  Scriptural  Baptism  as 
immersion  is. 

2d.  The  Scriptural  right  to  partake  of  the  Lord's  Supper  is  not 
restricted  to  those  who  have  received  Christian  Baptism. 

I  have  thus  ^done  precisely  what  you  requested  me  to  do  ;  if  I 
have  misunderstood  you  I  will  cheerfully  be  corrected.  I  am  de- 
termined to  interpose  no  difficulty  in  the  way  of  our  discussion ;  I 
will  comply  with  any  reasonable  request  you  may  make. 

Will  you  not  consent  that  each  shall  occupy  one  hour  and  a 
half  in  his  opening  address  instead  of  three  quarters  of  an  hour  ? 
I  have  called  your  attention  to  this  point  before.  This  is  the  only 
point  I  care  about,  and  I  do  not  make  this  a  sine  qua  non.  I  have 
not  yet  selected  a  moderator,  and  I  really  do  not  know  whom  to 
select.  Fraternally  yours, 

Jas.  D.  Coulling. 


20  CORRESPONDENCE. 

North  Garden,  March  19,  1860. 
Elder  J.  D.  CoulliiNg  : 

Dear  Sir — Yours  of  the  17th  ult.  was  duly  received,  but,  as  no 
necessity  for  an  immediate  reply  existed,  I  concluded  not  to  write 
until  I  could  give  you  the  name  of  the  gentleman  I  desired  to  act 
as  moderator. 

Dr.  John  K.  Woods  has  kindly  consented  to  act  as  one  of  the 
moderators,  and  will  unite  with  the  one  you  select,  in  choosing  a 
third. 

No  obstacle  seems  now  to  exist,  to  a  fair,  and  I  hope,  profitable 
discussion. 

We  are  not  entirely  agreed,  as  to  the  time  we  shall  occupy  in 
our^'opening  addresses  upon  each  proposition.  I  think  an  hour 
long  enough,  but  will  readily  yield  my  preference,  if  longer  time 
be  thought  best.  If  it  meet  your  approbation,  I  am  willing  to  sub- 
mit the  time  of  speaking,  and  the  rules  governing  the  discussion, 
&c.  (not  affecting  the  propositions  to  be  discussed,  they  being  now 
settled),  to  the  three  moderators :  or  I  will  call  at  your  residence, 
or  wherever  you  may  suggest,  with  a  friend,  and  unite  with  you 
jn  framing  such  rules  as  we  may  mutually  agree  upon.  Please  let 
me  know  which  mode  you  prefer. 

The  propositions  you  affirm,  occupying  the  first  and  last  points 
in  the  order  of  debate,  I  will  be  the  affirmant  of  the  2d  and  3d, 
as  follows : 

2d.  Believers  are  the  only  Scriptural  subjects  of  Apostolic  or 
Christian  Baptism.  3d.  Christian  Baptism  is  designed  to  show  the 
faith  of  the  subject  in  the  death,  burial,  and  resurrection  of  Jesus 
Christ,  as  the  procuring  cause  of  his  pardon  and  salvation.  You 
can  notify  the  public  of  our  expected  discussion,  in  such  a  manner 
as  you  deem  proper,  and,  unless  you  object,  I  shall,  in  a  short  time> 
take  the  same  liberty. 

Very  respectfully  and  fraternally, 

John  E.  Massey. 


Charlottesville,  Jpril  10,  1860. 
Elder  John  E.  Massey  : 

Dear  Sir — Yours  of  the  17th  ult.  came  to  hand  in  due  time- 
Absence  from  home,  and  other  circumstances  have  prevented  an 


CORRESPONDENCE.  21 

earlier  reply.  I  am  sorry  that  I  have  not  yet  been  able  to  select 
a  moderator.  I  have  spoken  to  a  friend,  to  find  one  for  me.  He 
told  me  the  other  day,  that  he  had  not  yet  succeeded.  You  sug- 
gest several  vrays  of  completing  preliminaries.  I  would  greatly 
prefer  a  personal  intervievr.  It  would  afford  us  an  opportunity  of 
becoming  acquainted  with  each  other.  I  would  not  know  you  if 
I  were  to  meet  you.  We  could  then  more  fully  exchange  views 
upon  several  subjects,  and  I  have  no  doubt^  we  would  agree  per- 
fectly. I  shall  be  at  home.  Providence  permitting,  next  week,  from 
Tuesday  to  Friday.  If  you  could  make  it  convenient  to  spend  an 
afternoon  and  night  at  my  house,  I  would  be  more  than  pleased. 
Come,  and  let  us  get  acquainted  with  each  other.  I  have  no  idea 
that  we  can  settle  these  arrangements  satisfactorily  unless  we  do 
meet. 

From  the  20th  to  the  30th  inst.,  I  expect  to  be  in  the  Valley  of 
Virginia ;  after  that,  I  shall  be  at  home,  every  Tuesday,  "Wednes- 
day, and  Thursday,  until  June.  If  you  should  not  find  it  conve- 
nient to  visit  me  next  week,  you  may  the  first  of  next  month. 

Very  truly  and  fraternally, 

Jas.  D.  Coulling. 


PROPOSITIONS. 

1.  Sprinkling  or  pouring  water  upon  a  proper  subject  in  the 
name  of  the  Holy  Trinity,  is  as  valid  and  Scriptural  Baptism  as  im- 
mersion is. 

Mr.  Coulling  affirms.     Mr.  Massey  denies. 

2.  Believers  are  the  only  Scriptural  subjects  of  Apostolic  or 
Christian  Baptism. 

Mr.  Massey  affirms.     Mr.  Coulling  denies. 

3.  Christian  Baptism  is  designed  to  show  the  faith  of  the  subject 
in  the  death,  burial,  and  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ,  as  the  pro- 
curing cause  of  his  pardon  and  salvation. 

Mr.  Massey  affirms.     Mr.  Coulling  denies. 

4.  The  Scriptural  right  to  partake  of  the  Lord^s  Supper  is  not 
restricted  to  those  who  have  received  Christian  Baptism. 

Mr.  Coulling  affirms.     Mr.  Massey  denies. 


22  PRELIMINARIES. 

KEGULATIONS. 

1.  Dr.  John  R.  Woods  having  been  chosen  by  Mr.  Massey,  John 
L.  Cochran,  Esq.,  by  Mr.  Coulling,  and  Col.  H.  P.  Murrell,  ofTenn., 
by  Messrs.  Woods  and  Cochran,  it  is  agreed  that  they  shall  pre- 
side during  the  discussion  to  preserve  order,  regulate  the  time  of 
speaking,  enforce  the  rules  adopted,  and  keep  the  debaters  to  the 
question  under  discussion. 

2.  Each  speaker  may  occupy  one  hour  and  a  quarter  in  his  first 
address  upon  each  new  subject,  and  half  an  hour  alternately  there- 
after to  its  close. 

3.  On  the  final  negative,  no  new  matter  shall  be  introduced. 

4.  Five  hours  shall  be  occupied  in  discussion  each  day,  com- 
mencing at  10  A.  M.,  and  closing^at  4  p.  m.,  with  a  recess  from  1  to 
2,  unless  a  change  is  required  by  unavoidable  circumstances. 

5.  The  discussion  shall  continue  from  day  to  day,  Sunday  ex- 
cepted, till  all  the  propositions  agreed  upon  shall  have  been  dis- 
cussed. 

G.  No  proposition  shall  be  discussed  more  than  two  days^  unles 
by  agreement  of  parties. 

7.  Mr.  P.  Kean  shall  act  as  stenographer,  Mr.  Massey  alone 
being  responsible  to  him  for  the  compensation  agreed  on  for  his 
services;  and,  therefore,  having  entire  right  to  the  product  of  his 
labor. 

8.  Each  debater  shall  have  the  right  to  make  any  verbal  or 
grammatical  changes  in  the  stenographer's  report,  that  shall  not 
alter  the  state  of  the  argument,  or  change  any  fact. 


RULES. 

1.  The  parties  mutually  agree  to  consider  each  other  as  standing 
on  a  footing  of  equality,  in  respect  to  the  subject  in  debate.  Each 
shall  regard  the  other  as  possessing  equal  talents,  knowledge,  and 
desire  for  truth  with  himself;  and  that  it  is  possible,  therefore, 
that  he  may  be  in  the  wrong,  and  his  adversary  in  the  right. 

2.  Personal  reflections  on  an  adversary!-  should  in  no  instance  be 
indulged. 


PRELIMINARIES.  23 

3.  As  truth  and  not  victory  is  the  professed  object  of  contro- 
versy, whatever  proofs  maybe  adduced  on  either  side,  should  bo 
examined  with  fairness  and  candor  ;  and  any  attempt  to  answer 
an  adversary  by  arts  of  sophistry,  or  to  lessen  the  force  of  his  rea- 
soning by  wit,  cavilling,  or  ridicule,  is  a  violation  of  the  rules  of 
honorable  controversy. 


INTKODUCTION. 

On  Tuesday,  the  12th  of  June,  18G0,  the  parties  met  in  a 
beautiful  grove  near  Woodville  (Ivy  Depot),  in  the  presence  of  a 
large  audience,  and  John  L.  Cochran,  Esq.,  introduced  the  speakers 
in  a  chaste,  brief  address,  and  read  the  preceding  propositions, 
regulations,  and  rules  of  order,  which  had  been  agreed  upon.  Rev. 
A.  B.  Brown,  pastor  of  the  Baptist  Church,  Charlottesville,  then 
offered  an  appropriate  and  earnest  appeal  to  the  Throne  of  Grace, 
for  the  illumination  and  guidance  of  both  speakers  and  hearers. 

Rev.  Mr.  Coulling  then  opened  the  discussion  upon  the  first 
proposition,  which  was  continued  for  three  days,  and  conducted  in 
a  most  amiable  spirit  and  manner ;  but  owing  to  the  failure  of 
the  reporter  to  discharge  his  duty,  the  first  address  of  each  speak- 
er was  all  that  was  taken  down  stenographically  of  the  three  days' 
discussion.     (This  has  not  been  written  out.) 

On  the  third  day,  Mr.  Coulling  announced  that  he  could  not  con- 
tinue the  discussion  longer  at  that  time,  but  agreed  to  resume  it  on 
the  10th  of  July.  Upon  resuming  the  discussion,  Dr.  Meriwether 
Anderson  acted  as  Moderator  in  the  place  of  Col.  H.  P.  Murrel,who 
was  absent.  During  thefoUowing  days  the  speakers  were  govern- 
ed more  by  convenience  in  making  an  equal  division  of  time,  than 
by  fixed  regulations  ;  sometimes  speaking  a  half  or  three  quarters 
of  ah  hour,  &c. 

Services  were  introduced  by  a  very  appropriate  prayer,  by 
Rev.  Mr.  Judkins,  "  stationed  minister'^  of  the  Methodist  Church 
of  Charlottesville. 

The  second  proposition  was  read  by  one  of  the  moderators,  and 
Rev.  Mr.  Massey  opened  the  discussion.      His  address,  and  all 


24  PRELIMINARIES. 

the  after  addresses  being  reported  by   Mr.  Wra.  Blair  Lord,  of 
New-York  City,  as  follows. 

(Mr.  Cochran  being  absent  on  the  third  day,  Dr.  Anderson  acted 
as  Mr.  Coulling's  moderator,  and  Mr,  David  Hansborough  as 
umpire.) 


DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM,t      . 


-.-4^ 

X'*'' 


THE  SUBJECTS  OF  BAPTISM. 
First  Dayh  Discussion. 

Tuesday,  July  10,  1860. 
MR.  MASSET'S  OPEMNG  ADDRESS. 

Messrs.  Moderators,  Ladies,  and  Gentlemen:  I  rise 
before  you  with,  profound  gratitude  to  a  kind  Heavenly 
Father,  for  honoring  me  with  another  opportunity  of 
addressing  you  upon  a  part  of  that  great  scheme  of  re- 
demption unfolded  to  us  in  the  gospel  of  His  Son  ;  and 
humbly  trust  in  Him  for  that  preparation  of  both  heart 
and  mind  which  will  enable  me  rightly  to  present  His 
truth. 

The  proposition  to  be  discussed  to-day,  and  which  I 
affirm,  is  this:  ^'Believers  are  the  only  Scriptural  sub- 
jects of  Apostolic  or  Christian  Baptism^ 

The  first  interview  between  our  Creator  and  our  first 
parents,  after  their  fall  from  their  primeval  estate,  was 
made  memorable  by  the  promise  that  "  the  seed  of  the 
woman  should  bruise  the  serpent's  head."  In  this  prom- 
ise, God  disclosed  his  purpose  to  destroy  the  evil,  malevo- 
lent influence  of  Satan ;  to  redeem  man  from  his  lost 
and  ruined  condition,  and  to  establish  Messiah's  King- 
dom upon  the  ruins  of  Satan's  demolished  throne, 
through  one  born  of  woman.  As  time  rolled  on,  and 
the  period  when  this  promise  should  be  fulfilled  drew 

2 


26  DEBATE    ON    THE 

nearer,  he  renewed  it  in  still  plainer  language.  Tc 
Abraham  he  said  :  "  In  thy  seed  shall  all  the  families  of 
the  earth  be  blessed."'  Narrowing  still  the  line  through 
which  the  promised  Messiah  should  appear,  old  Jacob, 
looking  forward,  through  prophetic  vision,  to  the  future 
destiny  of  the  tribe  of  Judah,  declared,  ''  The  sceptre  shall 
not  depart  from  Judah,  nor  a  lawgiver  from  between 
his  feet  until  Shiloh  come."  The  auspices  under  which 
this  promised  Messiah  should  appear,  were  disclosed 
through  Daniel,  to  Nebuchadnezzar,  in  the  assurance 
that  three  kingdoms  should  arise,  after  the  one  over 
which  he  presided,  and  that "  in  the  days  of  these  kings 
shall  the  G-od  of  Heaven  set  up  a  kingdom  which  shall 
never  be  destroyed ;  and  the  kingdom  shall  not  be  left 
to  other  people."  The  time  when  this  promise  should  be 
accomplished,  was  declared  to  Daniel  in  his  vision  of  the 
"  seventy  weeks"  that  were  to  be  accomplished  ^'  from 
the  sfoins:  forth  of  the  commandment  to  restore  and  to 
build  Jerusalem,"  until  the  "Prince  Messiah  be  cut  off." 
Before  the  last  sun  of  these  seventy  weeks  had  sought 
his  hiding-place  beyond  the  western  horizon,  a  voice  was 
heard  crying  in  the  wilderness,  "  Prepare  ye  the  way  of 
the  Lord ;  make  straight  in  the  desert  a  highway  for 
our  God." 

Of  this  harbinger  of  Jesus  Christ,  John  the  Baptist, 
it  was  declared  that  he  was  "sent  from  God,"  that  he 
might  prepare  the  way  before  the  coming  Messiah. 
Hence  he  exhorted  those  whom  he  addressed  to  repent^ 
with  the  assurance  that  "  the  kingdom  of  heaven  was  at 
hand."  As  it  is  in  the  present  day,  so  it  was  then,  some 
believed  the  testimony  of  the  divinely  commissioned  ser- 
vant of  God,  while  others  rejected  that  testimony.    The 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  27 

Divine  Master  had  prepared  a  test  by  which  the  recep- 
tion or  rejection  of  the  testimony  presented  by  his 
servant  should  be  manifested.  Jesus  Christ  himself 
declares  what  that  test  is.  He  says,  in  speaking  of  the 
baptism  of  John,  "  the  publicans  justified  Grod."  How 
do  we  know  ?  He  adds,  '^  being'  baptized  loith  the  bap- 
tism of  John.''''  "  But  the  Pharisees  and  lawyers  rejected 
the  counsel  of  God  against  themselves."  And  he  gives 
this  evidence  of  it :  '^  being  not  baptized  of  him." 

Many,  mistaking  the  design  of  this  servant  of  G-od, 
and  the  instructions  which  he  imparted,  entertained  the 
idea  that  they  were  entitled  to  this  divine  ordinance, 
because  of  their  natural  relationship  to  him  through 
whom  the  Messiah  had  been  promised.  Being  descend- 
ants of  Abraham,  and  not  understanding  that  the  Mes- 
siah required  a  change  of  the  heart  and  of  the  affec- 
tions^ and  a  corresponding  change  of  life,  they  came  de- 
siring to  receive  at  the  hands  of  John  the  Baptist,  the 
ordinance  of  baptism.  He  reproved  them  for  their  folly  : 
"  0  generation  of  vipers,"  said  he,  ''who  hath  warned 
you  to  flee  from  the  wrath  to  come  ?"  As  though  he 
had  asked,  What  novice  has  given  you  instructions? 
Who  understands  so  little  of  the  wondrous  scheme  of 
redemption  himself,  that  he  has  instructed  you  to  come 
asking  this  ordinance  at  my  hands,  without  understand- 
ing that  it  requires  a  change  of  the  affections  of  the 
heart,  before  it  can  be  received  ?  Who  has  warned  or 
instructed  you  so  imperfectly?  He  exhorts  them  : 
"  Bring  forth,  therefore,  fruits  meet  for  repentance  ;  and 
think  not  to  say  within  yourselves.  We  have  Abraham 
to  our  father  ;  for  I  say  unto  you,  that  God  is  able  of 
these  stones  to  raise  up  children  unto  Abraham."     He 


28  DEBATE    ON    THE 

does  not  only  urge  upon  them  to  repent  of  their  sins 
and  bring  forth  fruits  meet  for  repentance,  but  he  assures 
them  that  it  must  be  done  speedily^  for  noiv  "  the  axe  is 
laid  unto  the  root  of  the  trees,  and  every  tree  which 
bringeth  not  forth  good  fruit  is  hewn  down  and  cast 
into  the  fire."  He  informed  them  that  he  baptized 
them  ev  vdari, — m  water  (when  properly  rendered) ;  but 
that  Jesus  Christ,  who  was  coming  after  him,  should 
baptize  them  ev  Uvevfiari  ayio)  a  aai  nvgt^  in  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  i?ifire:  his  fan — his  dividing  instrument — 
was  in  his  hand,  and  he  would  thoroughly  purge  his 
floor,  and  gather  his  wheat — the  righteous,  or  those  who 
should  receive  the  testimony  which  was  given — into  his 
garner — his  kingdom  ;  and  the  chaff — the  wicked,  or  the 
unbelievers — should  be  burned  in  unquenchable  fire, 
referring  to  their  future  condition  when  cast  into  the 
*'  lake  that  burneth  with  fire  and  with  brimstone." 

While  this  servant  of  God  was  proclaiming  the  mes- 
sage with  which  he  was  commissioned,  that  there  might 
be  no  question  with  regard  to  the  divine  approbation 
resting  upon  his  act,  we  find  the  Messiah  himself  ap- 
pearing, that  he  may  receive  at  the  hands  of  his  servant 
the  ordinance  which  he  was  administering.  And  around 
this  lovely  scene  there  hovers  the  whole  Trinity :  God 
the  Son  submits  to  this  ordinance,  and  as  he  emerges 
out  of  the  liquid  grave,  his  body  having  been  laved 
with  the  waves  of  Jordan,  heaven  is  opened,  and  God 
the  Father,  with  an  audible  voice,  declares,  "  This  is 
my  beloved  Son,  in  whom  I  am  well  pleased ;"  while 
the  Holy  Spirit,  in  a  bodily  shape  like  a  dove,  folds  her 
bright  wings  and  rests  upon  the  immaculate  Son.  Be- 
fore this  harbinger,  who  had  introduced  Jesus  Christ  as 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  29 

"  the  Lamb  of  God,  that  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the 
world,"  had  closed  his  ministry,  we  find  this  divine 
Redeemer  ensras^ed  in  a  similar  work.  John  was  in- 
formed  that  Jesus  made  more  disciples  than  he  did, 
and  that  his  disciples  baptized  them.  John  and  Jesus 
Christ  IV ere  performing  a  similar  work. 

That  there  might  be  no  question  with  regard  to  the 
authority  of  Jesus  Christ  to  enact  those  laws  which 
should  govern  his  kingdom,  we  find  him  present- 
ing, hefore  a  chosen  company  of  witnesses,  an  unmis- 
takable evidence,  in  addition  to  that  already  given,  that 
he  was  the  Shiloh  who  should  come.  Upon  the  Mount 
of  Transfiguration,  while  he  was  in  the  presence  of  Peter, 
James,  and  John,  there  was  a  display  of  G-od's  power, 
and  of  his  approhation,  that  left  no  question  in  the  minds 
of  those  who  beheld  it.  Go  with  me,  if  you  please,  to 
that  mount  for  a  moment.  "Who  are  the  actors  upon 
that  scene?  Here  is  Moses,  who  had  declared — "A 
prophet  shall  the  Lord  your  God  raise  up  unto  you,  like 
unto  me  :  him  shall  ye  hear  in  all  things."  He  is  the 
representative  of  the  legal  dispensation.  Here  is  Elias, 
a  distinguished  prophet,  who  comes  forth  to  represent 
the  prophetic  dispensation.  Each  has  had  its  day  :  the 
laio  its  day,  and  prophecy  its  day.  They  have  accom- 
plished the  work  which  God  gave  them  to  do,  and  now 
come  to  bear  testimony  to  Jesus  Christ,  as  the  long- 
promised  one,  who  is  now  the  sole  King  in  Zion.  When 
the  divine  light  enshrouded  those  upon  that  mount,  Pe- 
ter and  James  and  John  were  overwhelmed  by  it,  and, 
falling  upon  their  faces,  heard  a  voice  from  heaven  pro- 
claiming— "  This  is  my  beloved  Son,  in  whom  I  am 
well  pleased ;  hear  ye  him."  "When  those  disciples 
arose,  expecting,  no  doubt,  to  see  Moses  and   Elias,  as 


30  DEBATE    ON    THE 

they  had  seen  them  a  few  moments  before,  ''  they  saw 
no  man,  save  Jesus  only^  Moses  and  Elias,  having 
home  their  testimony  to  him,  as  the  one  of  whom  they 
had  spoken  and  written,  have  now  retired,  and  left  Jesus 
Christ,  the  great  gospel  representative,  alone  to  carry 
forward  the  great  work  that  they  had  introduced.  This 
was  a  fit  preparation  for  the  events  that  were  soon  to 
transpire. 

Shortly  after  this,  Jesus  accomplished  in  his  own 
person  the  great  work  for  which  he  had  come  into  the 
world.  He  died  upon  the  cross.  When  he  was  laid  in 
the  tomb,  the  hopes  of  his  disciples  seemed  to  be  buried 
with  him.  They  had  hoped  "  it  had  been  he  which 
should  have  redeemed  Israel."  These  hopes  were  now 
destroyed.  But,  not  being  able  to  hold  him,  the  grave 
yields  up  the  bright  jewel  that  had  occupied  it.  And 
now  we  see  this  risen  Saviour  collecting  around  him 
the  disciples  whom  he  had  before  instructed,  that  he 
might  impart  to  them  ''the  great  commission"  un- 
der which  they  were  to  act,  and  under  which  all 
their  successors  are  to  act,  until  time  shall  cease  to  be. 
He  prefaces  this  with  the  assurance  that  "  All  power  is 
given  unto  me  in  heaven  and  in  earth."  There  is  no 
division  of  this  power  ;  there  is  no  sharing-  of  this  glory. 
Moses  and  the  prophets  wrote  of  me ;  they  testified  of 
me  ;  but  now,  having  introduced  me,  they  have  retired 
from  view,  and  all  power  is  mine.  "  Go  ye,  therefore, 
and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  into  \hQ  name  of 
the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost : 
Teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have 
commanded  you ;  and  lo,  I  am  with  you  always,  even 
unto  the  end  of  the  world." 

If  there  be  strength  in  unity  of  diversity,  not  only  is 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  31 

that  strength  found  in  the  unity  of  diversity  between  the 
evangelists  who  record  this  commission,  but  the  one  is 
a  most  beautiful  commentary  upon  the  other,  Mark 
records  it:  "  Gro  ye  into  all  the  world,  and  preach  the  gos- 
pel to  every  creature :  he  that  believeth  and  is  baptized 
shall  be  saved ;  but  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be 
damned."  Matthew  tells  us  "to  teach  all  nations." 
Mark  tells  us  how  we  are  to  teach  all  nations ;  to  wit :  by 
preaching  ^Hhe  gospel  to  every  creature.''''  If  you  will 
turn  to  your  Greek  Testament,  you  will  find,  that  while 
in  the  English^  the  commission,  as  given  by  Matthew, 
has  the  word  teach  twice  used,  in  the  Greek  there  are 
two  different  words  thus  translated.  The  word  rendered 
teach  is  fm^rjrevaare ;  the  word  rendered  teaching  is 
diddoKovreg.  While  these  words  are  of  very  similar  im- 
port, there  is,  nevertheless,  a  distinct  difference  between 
them.  Ma^rjTevoare  enjoins  the  imparting  such  informa- 
tion as  will  enable  those  who  receive  it  to  recognize 
Jesus  Christ  as  their  Saviour,  and  to  trust  in  him. 
AidaGKovTsg  enjoins  the  imparting  all  those  instructions 
which  are  necessary  for  the  guidance  of  the  Christian 
through  future  life. 

Dr.  Adam  Clarke,  one  of  the  ablest  commentators — 
the  ablest  commentator,  I  think  I  may  safely  say — be- 
longing to  the  "  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,^^  says, 
upon  the  nineteenth  verse  of  the  twenty-eighth  chapter 
of  Matthew : 

"  Go  ye  therefor e\  Because  I  have  the  authority  afore- 
said, and  can  send  whomsoever  \  will,  to  do  whatsoever 
I  please :  teach,  [la'&rjrevaaTe,  make  disciples  of  all 
nations^  bring  them  to  an  acquaintance  with  God,  who 
brought  them,  and  then  baptize  them  in  the  name  of  the 

9 


32  DEBATE    ON    THE 

Father.  It  is  natural  to  suppose  that  adults  were  the 
first  subjects  of  baptism  ;  for,  as  the  gospel  was  in  a 
peculiar  manner  sent  to  the  Gentiles,  they  must  hear 
and  receive  it,  before  they  could  be  expected  to  renounce 
their  old  prejudices  and  idolatries,  and  come  into  the 
bonds  of  the  Christian  covenant." 

Mr.  Barnes,  another  Pedobaptist  writer,  says,  upon 
the  same  passage  :  '*  This  word  properly  means  disciple, 
or,  make  disciples  of,  all  nations.  This  was  to  be  done, 
however,  by  teaching  them,  and  by  administering  the 
rite  of  baptism."  On  the  commission,  as  given  by 
Mark,  the  same  author  says :  "  Faith  and  baptism  are 
the  beginnings  of  a  Christian  life  :  the  one  the  beginning 
of  piety  in  the  soid  ;  the  other,  of  its  manifestation  he- 
fore  men,  or,  of  a  profession  of  religion." 

I  have  here,  also,  a  commentary  upon  the  New  Tes- 
tament, by  Patrick,  Lowth,  Arnold,  Whitby,  and  Low- 
man —  a  bright  constellation  of  Pedobaptist  authors. 
On  this  passage  they  say  : 

"  Ver.  19  :  MaeTjrevaare  iravrara  Idvri :  Teach  all  na- 
tions.] UaSrjreveiv  here  is,  '  to  preach  the  gospel  to  all 
nations,'  and  to  engage  them  to  believe  it,  in  order  to 
their  profession  of  that  faith  by  baptism ;  as  seems  ap- 
parent from  the  parallel  commission,  Mark  xvi.  15.  .  .  . 
If  here  it  should  be  said,  that  I  yield  too  much  to  the 
anti-probaptists,  by  saying,  that  to  be  made  disciples 
here  is  to  be  taught  to  believe  in  Christ,  that  so  they 
might  be  his  disciples ;  T  desire  any  one  to  tell  me  how 
the  apostles  could  iia^rireveiv ^  "  make  a  disciple,"  of  a 
heathen  or  unbelieving  Jew,  without  being  r]aS7]ralj  or 
*'  teachers"  of  them,  whether  they  were  not  sent  to 
preach  to  those  that  could  hear,  and  to  teach  them  to 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  33 

whom  they  preached,  that  '  Jesus  was  the  Christ,'  and 
only  to  baptize  them  when  they  did  believe  this?  This 
is  so  absolutely  necessary  in  the  nature  of  the  thing,  till 
a  Christian  Church  among  the  heathens  or  the  Jews  was 
founded,  and  so  expressly  said  by  Justin  Martyr  to  have 
been  the  practice  in  the  first  ages  of  the  Church,  that 
to  deny  what  is  confirmed  by  such  evidence  of  reason 
and  church  history,  would  be  to  prejudice  a  cause 
which,  in  my  poor  judgment,  needs  not  this  interpreta- 
tion of  the  word  fj^a^rj-evetv  ;  nor  need  it  be  asserted 
that  infants  are  made  disciples,  any  more  than  that 
they  are  made  believers  by  baptism,  but  only  that  they 
are  and  ought  to  be  admitted  into  the  Christian  Church 
and  kingdom  of  God,  and.  into  the  new  covenant,  by 
baptism,  if  they  be  children  of  believing  parents.  Now, 
against  this,  I  presume  it  is  no  objection,  that  the  unbe- 
lieving Jews  and.  Gentiles  were  first  to  be  taught  and 
believe  the  Christian  faith,  before  they  were  baptized, 
and  could  not  be  baptized  without  it,  or  that  infants 
cannot  be  taught  or  believe  while  they  continue  such." 

Dr.  George  Campbell,  a  distinguished  Scotch  Presby- 
terian, on  page  150,  vol.  2,  of  his  "  Four  Gospels,"  says  : 

*'  There  are  manifestly  three  things  w^hich  our  Lord 
here  distinctly  enjoins  his  apostles  to  execute,  with 
regard  to  the  nations,  to  wit :  iiadrirEveiv,  f^aTTrl^eLv, 
didcLGKeLv  :  that  is,  to  convert  them  to  the  faith,  to  initi- 
ate the  converts  into  the  Church  by  baptism,  and  to 
instruct  the  baptized  in  all  the  duties  of  the  Christian 
life." 

I  think  these  authorities  are  sufficient  to  show  that 
the  view  I  advanced  upon  this  subject  is  sustained  by 
the  most  ample  testimony ;  testimony  drawn  from  high 

2# 


34  DEBATE    ON    THE 

authority,  and  that,  too,  from  men  who  occupy  a  posi- 
tion, so  far  as  church  relation  is  concerned,  similar  to 
that  occupied  by  my  opponent  upon  this  occasion.  It 
would  not  be  necessary,  if  there  were  no  controversy 
upon  this  subject,  to  dwell  so  long  upon  an  instrument 
so  plain  as  the  commission  under  which  we  are  acting. 
But  as  there  is  controversy  about  it,  we  shall  dwell 
more  at  length  upon  it. 

All  men  are,  by  nature,  in  a  state  of  moral  darkness. 
The  light  which  is  to  guide  them  from  this  world  of  sin, 
of  sorrow,  and  of  suffering,  to  the  realms  of  unfading 
glory,  is  found  in  God's  revelation  of  his  will  to  man. 
Until  they  understand  this  revelation,  it  must  be  apparent 
to  all  that  they  are  wholly  unprepared  to  embrace  the 
doctrines  contained  in  it.  The  idea  that  men  would 
believe  a  gospel  which  they  had  never  heard,  obey  com- 
mands which  they  had  never  under  stood,  and  make  a 
profession  of  that  which  they  had  never  embraced,  could 
only  have  arisen  from  a  disordered  brain.  Paul,  when 
addressing  the  Church  at  Rome,  assured  them  that 
*'  whosoever  shall  call  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord  shall 
be  saved."  But  then  he  raises  a  difficulty  in  their  way : 
"  How,  then,  shall  they  call  on  him  in  whom  they  have 
not  believed?''''  And  then  another  question:  "And  how 
shall  they  believein  him  of  whom  they  have  not  heard  .^" 
And  still  another :  *' And  how  shall  they  hear  without  a 
preacher?''' — "And  how  shall  they  preach,  except  they 
be  sc't?^^  And,  finally,  he  sums  up  the  whole  by  de- 
claring that  ^^  faith  cometh  by  hearing",  and  hearing" 
by  the  ivord  of  Gody  Man,  as  a  rational  creature,  at 
once  falls  in  with  the  correctness  of  this  theory.  He 
does  not  expect  obedience  from  those  who   know  not 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  35 

what  tliey  are  to  obey.  And  hence  there  can  be  no  con- 
flict between  a  rightly-ordered  mind  and  the  teaching 
of  this  commission:  "Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all 
nations."  That  is  the  first  duty  to  be  performed.  Teach 
them — unfold  to  them  so  much,  at  least,  of  the  gospel 
of  Jesus  Christ  as  will  enable  them  to  understand  that 
they  are  by  nature  sinners  against  Grod ;  that  "  Grod  so 
loved  the  world  that  he  gave  his  only-begotten  Son,  that 
whosoever  believeth  in  him  should  not  perish,  but  have 
everlasting  life ;"  that  he  requires  all  those  who  desire 
to  escape  the  wrath  to  come,  to  repent  of  their  sins,  and 
to  receive  Jesus  Christ  as  their  only  refuge  from  the  ire 
of  God's  wrath.  Do  as  Paul  did.  He  declares  :  "  I  de- 
livered unto  you,  first  of  all,  that  which  I  also  received, 
how  that  Jesus  Christ  died  for  our  sins,  according  to  the 
Scriptures ;  that  he  was  huried,  and  that  he  rose  again 
the  third  day,  according  to  the  Scriptures."  When  you 
have  made  known  to  them  these  truths ;  when  you  have 
followed  Mark's  instructions :  "  Preach  the  gospel  to 
every  creature  ;"  and  when  they  believe  this  testimony, 
what  evidence  shall  they  give  that  they  believe  in  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  ? — Be  baptized  "  into  the  name  of 
the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 
But  leave  them  not,  when  you  have  performed  this  ordi- 
nance upon  them  ;  but  instruct  them  with  regard  to 
the  duties  of  their  subsequent  life.  "  Teach  them  to 
observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you.*' 
If  this  be  not  the  plain,  rational  view  that  any  unbi- 
ased mind  would  take  of  this  commission,  then,  my 
hearers,  I  concede  that  I  have  wholly  misapprehended  it. 
Now,  to  show  you  that  others,  in  addition  to  those 
whose  authority  I  have  already  presented,  agree  with 


36  DEBATE  ON  THE 

me  in  regard  to  this,  I  will  read  you  a  passage  on  the 
233d  page  of  a  Avork  by  Dr.  Geo.  D.  Armstrong,  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  one  of  the  most  determined  sup- 
porters of  infant  sprinkling,  whose  writings  I  have 
read.  Determined  as  he  is  to  maintain  his  theory, 
he  yet  says,  with  regard  to  this  commission  (of  Jesus 
Christ) : 

"  He  is  speaking  of  such,  and  such  only,  as  he  sends 
his  disciples  to  preach  his  gospel  to  ;  the  case  of  infants 
is  in  no  way  referred  to  in  his  declaration  respecting 
either  faith  or  baptism.  If  his  disciples  are  to  believe 
(as  the  Baptists,  in  common  with  ourselves,  think  they 
are)  Ihat  infants  are  saved  without  faith,  he  has  taught 
that  doctrine  on  some  other  occasion,  and  he  does  not 
recall  that  teaching  here.  If  his  disciples  are  to  believe 
that  infants  may  properly  be  baptized  without  faith,  he 
has  taught  it  on  some  other  occasion,  and  he  does  not 
recall  that  teaching  here.  The  two  cases  are  precisely 
similar,  and  our  interpretation  of  them  must  stand  or 
fall  together." 

I  next  read  from  the  176th  page  of  Hibbard  upon 
Baptism.  Rev.  Freeborn  Gr.  Hibbard,  of  the  G-enesee 
Conference,  is  a  -minister  of  high  standing  in  the  Metho- 
dist Episcopal  Church.     He  says  : 

"  The  words  of  the  commission,  as  given  by  Matthew, 
chap,  xxviii.  19,  20,  run  thus :  '  G-o  ye  therefore  and 
teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost :  teach- 
ing them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have  com- 
manded you.'  It  is  well  known  that  our  English  ver- 
sion does  not  give  a  satisfactory  view  of  this  passage. 
The  word  rendered  teach^  in  the  nineteenth  verse,  is  alto- 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  37 

gether  a  diffevent  word  in  the  Grreek  text  from  that  which 
is  rendered  teach  in  verse  20.  It  should  read  :  "  Go  ye 
therefore  and  disciple''' — that  is  to  say,  make  concerts  to 
Christianity  of  (imdj]T£voaTe)  all  nations,  baptizing 
them,'  &c. ;  '  teaching"  (didaoKovreg)  them  to  observe, 
&c.  Here  it  is  to  be  observed,  first,  certain  things  are 
enjoined,  viz.  :  to  disciple,  to  baptize,  and  to  teach  ; 
secondly,  these  things  are  enjoined  in  a  certain  order, 
viz. :  the  order  in  which  they  stand  in  the  divine  com- 
mission. The  apostles  were  first  required  to  persuade 
the  people  to  forsake  heathenism  and  Judaism,  and  em 
brace  Christianity.  This  being  done,  the  next  injunc- 
tion in  order  of  their  commission  was,  to  baptize  them 
Being  thus  brought  into  church  relationship  with  one 
another,  and  with  a  visible  relation  to  Christ,  they  were 
to  be  taught  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  Christ  had 
commanded." 

Here  you  discover  that  the  view  I  have  presented  is 
sustained  by  those  whose  actions  upon  this  subject  are 
wide  of  what  they  themselves  teach.  I  may  be  callea 
upon  to  explain  this  reunarkable  inconsistency — that 
men  who  can  write  and  preach  so  clearly  and  fluently, 
should,  in  the  next  moment,  contradict  by  their  actions 
what  they  have  been  constrained  to  acknowledge  to  be 
the  teachings  of  the  word  of  God.  But  I  leave  men  who 
act  thus  to  reconcile  their  own  inconsistencies.  You, 
my  hearers,  have  heard  from  the  respondent,  on  a  former 
occasion,  that  while  he  recognizes  a  different  act  as  the  act 
enjoined  by  Jesus  Christ  to  initiate  his  followers  into  his 
visible  kingdom,  he  ivill,  nevertheless,  if  the  iveaiher  be 
pleasant — "  not  too  co/cZ" — and  the  water  not  too  deep, 
immerse  those  who  may  differ  with  him.    He  will  surely 


88  DEBATE    ON    THE 

be  a  very  proper  defender  of  those  who  can  act  with 
such  inconsistency  as  the  men  to  whom  I  have  referred 
do.  I  presume  he  has  studied  their  inconsistencies,  and 
will  reconcile,  if  he  can^  that  sort  of  ethics  which  justi- 
fies a  man  in  teaching  one  doctrine^  and  practising'  an- 
other. 

In  a  note  at  the  bottom  of  page  347,  vol.  3,  of 
Olshausen's  Biblical  Commentary — and  remember  that 
he  is  likewise  an  able  Pedobaptist ;  the  work  is  also 
edited  and  published  by  Pedobaptists — the  editor  says  : 

"  In  the  words  describing  the  institution  of  baptism 
in  Math,  xxviii.  19,  the  connection  of  na-dTjreveiv^  dis- 
ciplining, with  fSaTTTL^sLv,  baptizing,  and  dtSdonetv^ 
teaching,  appears  quite  positively  to  oppose  the  idea, 
that  the  baptism  of  children  entered  at  first  into  the 
view  of  Christ." 

I  think  the  remarks  I  have  made  (with  the  author- 
ity I  have  presented  to  show  that  those  remarks  are 
correct),  upon  the  commission  under  which  the  servants 
of  G-od  proclaim  the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  are  suffi- 
cient to  satisfy  all  present  that  we  have  formed  correct 
views  of  that  commission.  And  until  their  correctness 
be  questioned,  I  shall  proceed  with  other  evidences  that 
believers  are  the  o^ilp  scriptural  subjects  of  apostolic  or 
Christian  baptism. 

It  will  scarcely  be  denied  by  any  one  that  the  apostles 
understood  the  commission  given  them  by  their  Master. 
I  presume  that  no  affectionate  child  ever  hung  with 
more  eager  interest  upon  the  last  words  of  a  dying  pa- 
rent, than  did  these  disciples  upon  the  last  instructions 
or  directions  which  they  received  from  their  risen  and 
about-ascending  Redeemer.    And  you  will  notice  another 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  39 

thing,  that  when  they  received  the  commission  to  "  go 
and  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature,"  they  were  not  yet 
qualified  to  enter  upon  the  discharge  of  that  duty.  They 
were  yet  to  wait  for  other  preparation — to  "tarry  at 
Jerusalem  until  they  should  be  imbued  with  power  from 
on  high" — until  the  Holy  Ghost  should  fully  qualify 
them  to  go  forward,  not  only  in  the  name^  but  in  the 
spirit  and  power ^  of  their  divine  Master.  The  whole 
machinery  must  be  brought  into  active  exercise,  before 
the  visible  kingdom  of  Jesus  Christ  be  established. 
The  days  of  the  kings  of  whom  Daniel  had  spoken 
to  Nebuchadnezzar,  had  now  come.  A  Csesar  sat  upon 
the  throne  of  the  "  kingdom  stronsf  as  iron."  The  time. 
therefore,  for  setting  up  the  kingdom  of  Shiloh  had  fully 
arrived. 

Bear  in  mind,  there  is  a  manifest  difference  between 
restoring^  repairins;^  or  continuing  a  kingdom  already 
in  existence,  and  setting  up  a  kingdom.  If  I  say  to  a 
workman,  I  want  you  to  repair  my  house — he  under- 
stands that  I  wish  him  to  perform  some  labor  upon  a 
house  that  has  already  been  built.  If  I  say  to  him,  I 
want  you  to  put  up  a  house — he  understands  that  I 
wash  him  to  build  me  a  new  edifice.  The  Grod  of  heaven 
does  not  say,  I  will  continue.  I  will  restore^  I  will  repair 
a  kingdom — but,  after  naming  a  kingdom  that  should 
arise,  inferior  to  the  one  over  which  Nebuchadnezzar 
presided,  and  then  a  "third  kingdom  of  brass,  that 
should  have  rule  over  all" — beautifully  fulfilled  when 
Alexander,  having  conquered  the  whole  world,  wept 
because  there  were  not  other  nations  that  he  could  con- 
quer ;  and  then  a  fourth  kingdom,  "  strong  as  iron" — 
the  Roman  empire  ;   "in  the  days  of  these  kings  shall 


40  DEBATE    ON    THE 

the  Grod  of  heaven  set  up  a  kingdom  :"  bring  into  exis- 
tence a  kingdom  never  before  visible  to  man.  He  had 
been  preparing  for  it  from  his  first  promise  given  to 
Adam  down  to  this  time ;  he  continued  that  preparation 
until  "  the  fulness  of  the  time  was  come."  And  then  he 
"  sent  forth  his  Son,  made  of  a  woman,  made  under  the 
law,  that  he  might  redeem  them  that  were  under  the 
law."  That  time  had  now  come.  "  The  law  and  the 
prophets  were  until  John."  Mark  represents  this  as 
"the  beginning  of  the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ."  The 
whole  machinery  of  this  kingdom  was  brought  into  ac- 
tive exercise  on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  The  divine  power 
which  had  been  promised  descended,  and  under  his 
mighty  influence  the  apostles  began  to  preach  that  glo- 
rious gospel  committed  to  their  charge.  What  do  they 
behold,  as  they  preach  their  first  sermon  under  the  com- 
mission ?  Their  hearers  "  were  pricked  in  their  heart," 
and  cried  out,  "  Men  and  brethren,  what  shall  we  do  ?" 
Peter,  who  acted  as  spokesman  on  that  occasion,  ex- 
horted them  to  "  Repent  and  be  baptized,  every  one  of 
you,  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  for  the  remission  of 
sins  ;  and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost ; 
for  the  promise  is  unto  you,  and  to  your  children,  and  to 
all  that  are  afar  off,  even  as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God 
shall  call."  What  was  the  result  of  this  preaching  ? 
"  They  that  gladly  received  his  word  were  baptized  ?" 
They  that  gave  evidence  that  they  rejoiced  in  the  assur- 
ance made  by  Peter  of  God's  willingness  to  extend  to 
them  pardon  and  salvation,  evinced  their  hearty  recep- 
tion of  it  by  being  buried  with  him  in  baptism. 

Olshausen,  vol.  3,  page  209,  in  his  remarks  upon  this 
passage,  says  :   "  With  this  repentance  baptism  is  then 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  41 

connected,  which  necessarily  presupposes  faith,  because 
it  requires  an  acknowledgment  of  Christ  as  the  Mes- 
siah." *^ 

Barnes  says,  upon  the  same  passage :  "  They  that 
gladly  received.]  The  word  rendered  gladly  means 
freely^  cheerfully^  joyfully.  It  implies  that  they  did  it 
without  compulsion  and  with  joy.  Religion  is  not  com- 
pulsion. They  who  become  Christians,  do  it  cheerfully, 
and  do  it,  rejoicing  in  the  privilege  of  becoming  recon- 
ciled to  G-od  through  Jesus  Christ."  "  Were  baptized.] 
That  is,  those  who  professed  a  readiness  to  embrace  the 
offers  of  salvation.  The  narrative  plainly  imphes  that 
this  was  done  the  same  day.  Their  conversion  was 
instantaneous.  The  demand  upon  them  was,  to  yield 
themselves  at  onoe  to  G-od.  And  their  profession  was 
made,  and  the  ordinance  which  sealed  their  profession 
administered  without  d.elay." 

I  feel  constrained  to  believe  that  the  most  skeptical'man 
upon  the  doctrine  of  believer's  baptism,  will  not  be  able  to 
convince  any  of  this  audience  that  the,  first  administration 
of  that  ordinance  by  the  apostles,  after  they  had  received 
their  commission  from  their  divine  Master,  favored  any 
other  than  believer's  baptism  in  the  slightest  degree. 
Lowth  and  his  coadjutors  paraphrase  the  38th  and  39th 
verses  thus  :  "  Then  Peter  said  unto  them,  Repent,  and 
be  baptized,  every  one  of  you,  in  the  name  of  Jesus 
Christ,  for  the  remission  of  (your)  sins  {which  by  this 
baptism  ivill  be  ivashed  away^  xxii.  16),  and  [then)  ye 
{also)  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  G-host,  for  the 
promise  {of  him  mentioned,  Joel  xii.  28)  is  {made) 
unto  you  and  your  children,  and  {7iot  to  them  only,  but 
also)  to  all  that  are  afar  off:  (that  is  to  say,  the  Gen- 


42  DEBATE    ON    THE 

tiles:)  even  [to)  as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God  shall 
call."  In  his  comments  on  these  verses,  he  says : 
"  Thirdly,  these  words  will  not  prove  a  right  of  infants 
to  receive  baptism.  The  promise  mentioned  here  being 
that  only  of  the  Holy  G-host,  mentioned  in  verses  16-18, 
and  so  relating  only  to  the  times  of  the  miraculous  efTu- 
sion  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  to  those  persons  who  by 
age  were  made  capable  of  these  extraordinary  gifts." 

The  next  case  of  baptism  to  which  I  call  your  atten- 
tion is  recorded  in  the  eighth  chapter  of  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles,  12th  and  ISth  verses :  "  When  they  believed 
Philip,  preaching  the  things  concerning  the  kingdom 
of  God,  and  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  they  were  bap- 
tized." Wlio  were  baptized  ?  The  evangelist  is  here 
very  particular  in  telling  who  were  baptized  ;  and  we 
would  suppose  that  here,  at  least,  if  there  was  any 
place  authorizing  the  baptism  of  infants,  we  should  find 
it.  Does  it  say.  They  were  baptized,  men,  women,  and 
children?  By  no  means.  But,  "when  they  believed 
Philip,  preaching  the  things  concerning  the  kingdom  of 
God,  and  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  they  were  baptized, 
both  men  and  womeny  I  certainly  need  not  say  any- 
thing in  explanation  of  that. 

In  the  thirty-seventh  verse  of  the  same  chapter,  we  find 
Philip  using  this  language  to  the  eunuch  who  desired  to 
be  baptized  of  hini :  "  And  Philip  said.  If  thou  believcst 
with  all  thy  hearty  thou  mayest.  And  he  answered  and 
said,  I  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God. 
And  he  commanded  the  chariot  to  stand  still,  and  they 
went  down  into  the  water,  both  Philip  and  the  eunuch; 
and  he  baptized  him."  Mr.  Barnes  says,  upon  this 
passage : 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  43 

"  This  was  then  stated  to  be  the  proper  qualification 
for  making  a  profession  of  religion.  The  terms  are, 
(first,)  faith  :  that  is,  a  reception  of  Jesus  as  a  Sa- 
viour; yielding  the  mind  to  the  proper  influences  of  the 
truths  of  redemption  (see  note,  Mark  xvi.  16)  ;  (sec- 
ond,) there  is  required  not  merely  the  assent  of  the 
understanding,  but  a  surrender  of  the  heart,  the  will, 
the  affections,  to  the  truth  of  the  gospel.  As  these 
were  the  proper  qualifications  then,  so  they  arc  now. 
Nothing  less  is  required." 

As  he  refers  to  the  note  on  Mark  xvi.  16,  to  explain 
what  he  means,  I  will  give  you  that  again  : 

^^  Faith  and  baptism  are  the  beginnings  of  the  Chris- 
tian life:  the  one,  the  beginning  of  piety  in  the  soul; 
the  other,  of  its  manifestation  before  men,  or  of  a  jpro- 
fession  of  religion." 

Patrick,  Lowth,  &c.,  say  of  the  baptism  of  the  eu- 
nuch: 

"  Four  things  are  hence  observable  :  ( I)  that  baptism 
was  here  performed  by  a  fcard(3aGLg,  or  descent  of  the 
baptized  person  in  the  water ;  (2)  that  upon  this 
faith,  that  Jesus  Christ  was  the  Son  of  Grod,  and  that 
he  died  for  our  sins,  which  was  the  thing  which  Philip 
preached  to  the  eunuch,  adult  persons,  who  before 
owned  one  G-od  and  the  spirit  of  prophecy,  as  the  eu- 
nuch, were  received  to  that  baptism,  in  which  they  were 
taught,  and  by  which  they  were  obliged  to  observe  all 
thini^s  that  Jesus  had  commanded ;  for,  though  the  be- 
lief that  Jesus  was  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  was 
the  great  article  propounded  and  first  preached  to  every 
convert,  yet  the  end  of  baptism  being  the  remission  of 
sins,  and  the  effect  of  it  justification,  or  the  absolution 


44  DEBATE    ON    THE 

of  the  baptized  person  from  his  past  sins,  and  this  justi- 
fication and  remission  of  sins  being  declared  to  he  ob- 
tained only  through  faith  in  his  blood,  it  is  certain  that 
believing  in  the  Lord  Jesus  must  include  faith  in  his 
meritorious  death  and  passion,  or,  as  the  Scripture  saith, 
*  faith  in  his  blood.'  " 

The  next  case  of  baptism  to  which  I  call  your 
attention  is  that  of  Saul  of  Tarsus,  in  Acts  ix.  17 
and  18. 

'' And  Ananias  went  his  way,  and  entered  into  tho 
house  :  and  putting  his  hands  on  him,  said,  Brother 
Saul,  the  Lord,  even  Jesus,  that  appeared  unto  thee  as 
thou  earnest,  hath  sent  me,  that  thou  mightest  receive 
thy  sight,  and  be  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost.  And  im- 
mediately there  fell  from  his  eyes  as  it  had  been  scales ; 
and  he  received  sight  forthwith,  and  arose  and  was 
baptized." 

I  think  that  none  will  deny  that  that  was  "  believer'' s 
baptism.''''  The  next  you  will  find  in  Acts  x.,  from  44th 
to  48th  verses.  It  is  a  record  of  the  baptism  of  Corne- 
lius and  his  household.  And  mark  you,  my  hearers, 
the  same  course  is  here  pursued  in  the  introduction  of 
the  gospel  among  the  G-entiles,  that  was  pursued  in  the 
proclamation  of  it  to  the  Jews  in  the  first  sermon 
preached  by  the  apostles  after  the  reception  of  their 
commission.  They  first  preached  to  them  Jesus  Christ; 
and  him  crucified  ;  and — "  While  Peter  yet  spake  these 
words,  the  Holy  Ghost  fell  on  all  them  which  heard  the 
word  ;  and  they  of  the  circumcision  which  believed, 
were  astonished,  as  many  as  came  with  Peter,  because 
that  on  the  Gentiles  also  was  poured  out  the  gift  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.     For  they  heard  them  speak  with  tongues 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISiVI.  45 

and  magnify  G-od.  Then  answered  Peter,  Can  any  man 
forbid  water,  that  these  should  not  be  baptized  which 
have  received  the  Holy  Ghost  as  well  as  we  ?  And  he 
commanded  them  to  be  baptized  in  the  name  of  the 
Lord.      Then  prayed  they  him  to  tarry  certain  days." 

Explanation  would  be  superfluous  upon  a  passage 
which  so  clearly  explains  itself.  I  will,  however,  give 
you  one  authority,  which  expresses  my  views  upon  it. 
Olshausen  says  upon  this  passage  : 

"We  must  suppose,  in  the  case  of  Cornelius,  that 
regeneration  took  place  before  baptism,  as,  indeed,  the 
baptizing  of  adults  always  presupposes  faith." 

On  the  301st  page  of  the  same  volume,  there  is  this 
note  by  the  editor  : 

"  He  [Olshausen]  seems,  in  general,  to  regard  regener- 
ation as  a  consequence  of  baptism  ;  and  yet  in  this  para- 
graph he  allows  that  the  inward  change  of  regeneration 
should  at  least  be  begun  before  the  outward  rite  of  bap- 
tism takes  place." 

Although  the  doctrines  of  these  men,  with  respect  to 
the  design  of  baptism,  were  different  from  those  which 
the  view  here  given  seems  to  justify,  yet,  in  explaining 
this  and  other  passages,  they  are  bound  to  acknowl- 
edge that  they  mean  what  we  claim  to  be  their  mean- 
ing.    Again  : 

*'  It  is  plain,  too,  from  his  remarks  on  Lydia,  xvi.  15, 
that  he  considers  the  very  first  inclination  of  the  mind 
to  Grod  as  the  result  of  the  divine  influence.  Faith, 
and  a  change  of  heart,  then,  ought  to  go  before  baptism. 
They  are  the  proper  preparation  for  it ;  and  if  they  are 
wanting,  baptism  will  be  found  altogether  unable  to  pro- 
duce them.     Baptism  will  never,  of  itself,  regenerate  the 


46  DEBATE    ON    THE 

soul.  The  author  seems  to  overlook  the  distinction  between 
the  ordinary  and  extraordinary  influence  of  the  Spirit. 
There  were  ordinary  influences,  such  as  Lydia  experi- 
enced, which  were  absolutely  necessary  to  the  very  first 
right  feeling,  and  which,  of  course,  must  precede  the  faith 
and  baptism  of  adults,  and  not  follow  them.  But  there 
was  also,  in  primitive  times,  an  extraordinary  influence 
of  the  Spirit,  which  displayed  itself  in  a  palpable  manner, 
and  which  was  often  exhibited  after  baptism.  This 
extraordinary  influence,  though  following  baptism,  was 
not  connected  with  it,  our  author  allows,  by  any  internal 
necessity,  but  depended  altogether  upon  the  will  of  Grod. 
And  much  less  could  the  ordinary  influence  that  pro- 
duced faith,  and  that,  of  course,  preceded  baptism,  be 
itself,  in  any  sense,  a  consequence  of  baptism.  The 
regeneration  of  faith  should  always  go  before  baptism, 
and  it  is  in  vain  to  look  to  baptism  for  it." 

The  next  case  is  that  of  Lydia,  recorded  in  Acts  xvi. 
13,  14,  15 : 

"  And  on  the  Sabbath  we  went  out  of  the  city  by  a 
river  side,  where  prayer  w^as  wont  to  be  made ;  and  we 
sat  down  and  spake  with  the  women  which  resorted 
thither.  And  a  certain  woman  named  Lydia,  a  seller 
of  purple,  of  the  city  of  Thyatira,  which  worshipped 
God,  heard  us  :  whose  heart  the  Lord  opened,  that  she 
attended  unto  the  things  which  were  spoken  of  Paul. 
And  wdien  she  was  baptized,  and  her  household,  she 
besought  us,  saying.  If  ye  have  judged  me  to  be  faith- 
ful to  the  Lord,  come  into  my  house,  and  abide  there. 
And  she  constrained  us." 

Perhaps  the  claim,  that  has  been  so  often  asserted, 
that  here  is  presumptive  evidence  for  infant  baptism, 


SUBJECTS  uF  Baptism.  47 

may  be  set  up  on  the  present  occasion.  To  show  how 
utterly  groundless  such  a  claim  is,  I  refer  you,  not 
simply  to  what  I  say  upon  the  subject,  but  1  expect  to 
sustain  all  that  I  say  by  proper  authority — not  quoted 
simply  from  memory,  and  which  my  opponent  has  no 
opportunity  of  examining  and  replying  to — but  from 
works  which  I  have  here  before  you,  about  which  no 
question  can  be  raised,  and  which  he  has  every  opportu- 
nity of  replying  to,  if  he  desires  it.  Dr.  Clarke — and  I 
understand  that  young  Methodist  preachers  are  required 
to  study  Dr.  Clarke  as  a  book  of  reference  upon  Bible 
interpretation,  for  four  years  before  they  are  considered 
fully  fledged — Dr.  Clarke  says  : 

^'' She  attended  unto  the  things.]  She  believed  them 
and  received  them  as  the  doctrines  of  God,  and  in  this 
faith  she  was  joined  by  her  whole  family,  and  in  it  they 
w^ere  baptized." 

Olshausen,  vol.  3,  page  347,  348,  says : 
"  It  is  highly  improbable  that  the  phrase  olko<;  avr^g^ 
her  household,  should  be  understood  as  including  infant 
children  :  relatives,  servants,  grown  children,  might  be 
baptized  along  with  her,  for  they  would  be  at  once  car- 
ried away  by  the  youthful  power  of  her  new  life  of  faith. 
There  is  altogether  wanting  any  conclusive  proof-pas- 
sage for  the  baptism  of  children  in  the  age  of  the  apos- 
tles, nor  can  the  necessity  of  it  be  deduced  from  the 
nature  of  baptism." — [Time  expired.] 


MR.  COULLING'S  FIRST  REPLY. 

Mr.  CouLLiNG :    The    issue  between   Mr.   Massey  and 
myself  is  simply  this :  he  affirms  that  believers  only  are 


48  debat'e  on  the 

scriptural  subjects  of  apostolic  or  Christian  baptism.  I 
affirm,  in  opposition  to  that,  that  infants  are  scriptural 
subjects  of  baptism. 

In  the  debate,  as  far  as  it  has  now  progressed  upon 
the  other  side  of  the  question,  Mr.  Massey  has  confined 
himself  simply  and  only  to  this  proposition :  believers 
ought  to  be  baptized.  And  I  suppose  that  if  any  person 
had  come  into  this  congregation  after  the  subject  for 
discussion  had  been  read  by  our  mutual  friend.  Dr. 
Woods,  and  had  tried  to  gather  what  we  were  to  contend 
about  from  what  Mr.  Massey  said,  the  impression  would 
inevitably  be  made,  that  I  was  expected  to  advance  the 
doctrine  that  people  ought  to  be  baptized  without  know- 
ing anything  upon  the  face  of  God's  earth  about  religion ; 
that  I  intended  to  come  here  and  teach  that  every  adult 
person  ought  to  be  baptized  before  they  believed  in  any 
such  thing  as  religion.  That  is  the  sum  and  substance 
of  everything  that  he  has  said.  He  has  advocated  a  point 
that  no  Pedobaptist  in  the  world,  who  understands  any- 
thing about  the  subject,  would  ever  deny.  And  he  has 
brought  Pedobaptist  after  Pedobaptist  up  here,  and  read 
them  as  agreeing  with  him.  And  yet,  marvellous  to 
tell,  he  is  astonished  that  Pedobaptists  should  agree  with 
him,  and  affirms  most  emphaticall}^  that  there  is  a  con- 
flict between  Pedobaptist  teaching  and  conduct.  Did 
you  ever  hear  of  a  Pedobaptist,  since  the  \vorld  was 
made,  baptizing  an  infidel,  or  a  man  who  did  not  believe 
in  Christ  ? 

I  wish  the  gentleman  had  given  himself  the  trouble 
to  tell  us  what  he  meant  by  believing.  I  suppose,  and 
I  gather  from  quotations  that  he  has  made  approvingly 
from  the  works  introduced,  and  I  gather  from  the  tenor 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  49 

of  what  he  says,  that  by  believinp^,  he  means  that  a 
man  must  believe  in  such  a  way  as  to  be  a  Chris- 
tian. And  he  quotes  the  case  of  CorneUus,  where  the 
apostle  cries  out:  *' Can  any  man  forbid  water,  that 
these  should  not  be  baptized,  which  have  received  the 
Holy  Ghost  as  well  as  we  ?"  I  suppose  he  means  that 
they  shall  become  personally  interested  in  Jesus  Christ, 
shall  become  Christians,  before  they  are  fit  subjects  for 
baptism.  (Turning  to  Mr.  Massey.)  Will  you  tell  me 
if  that  is  your  idea  of  the  word  believing  ?  Tell  me 
that,  and  it  will  save  me  a  little  trouble :  whether  or 
not,  by  the  word  believing^  you  mean  to  convey  the 
idea  that  before  a  person  is  a  fit  subject  for  baptism,  he 
shall  believe  in  such  a  manner  that  he  shall  receive 
(Christ  in  his  heart,  and  therefore  be  regarded  as  a  fit 
subject  for  baptism  ? 

Mr.  Massey  :  I  am  a  little  astonished  at  the  confu- 
sion of  mind  my  brother  is  laboring  under  ;  but  for  this, 
he  certainly  would  have  understood,  as  all  this  audience 
understood,  that  my  position  is,  that  to  become  a  fit  sub- 
ject for  Baptism  a  person  must  have  that  faith  which 
enables  him  to  receive  Jesus  Christ  as  the  promised 
Saviour,  as  his  Saviour ;  and  that  that  faith  must,  in 
every  instance,  precede  baptism. 

Mr.  CouLLiNG :  That  is  all  I  wanted.  Now  it  is  a 
plain  course ;  we  understand  each  other.  He  affirms 
now,  that  a  man  before  he  ought  to  be  baptized  must 
receive  the  remission  of  his  sins  ;  must  be  a  Christian  ; 
must  have  received  Christ.  Do  you  all  understand  him 
so?  What  meaneth  this  passage  of  Scripture  :  "Arise, 
and  be  baptized,  and  wash  away  thy  sins,  calling  on 
the  name  of  the  Lord,"  Acts  xxii.  16  ?     The  sins  are 

3 


50  DEBATE    ON    THE 

not  forgiven  there.  What  means  this :  "  When  they 
heard  these  sayings,  they  were  pricked  in  their  hearts. 
And  Peter  said,  Repent,  and  be  baptized  for  the  remis- 
sion of  sins,  and  ye  shall  receiA^e  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Ghost"?  Now  these  are  two  passages  of  Scripture 
which,  according  to  Mr.  Massey's  definition  of  the  word 
believe^  are  as  point-blank  against  that  definition  as  pos- 
sible. If  he  had  been  less  broad  in  his  definition,  and 
had  said  that  a  man  should  understand  that  he  was  a 
sinner,  and  should  assent  that  Christ  had  come  into 
the  world  to  forgive  men's  sins,  then,  as  a  peni- 
tent, he  might  be  a  proper  subject  for  baptism, 
there  would  be  no  doubt  of  that,  even  before  he  had 
received  the  evidence  in  himself  of  the  remission  of 
sins. 

Now,  there  are  points  in  Mr.  Massey's  discourse  that 
I  propose  to  consider  just  as  I  proceed,  in  an  argument 
of  my  own.  He  has  said  very  little,  indeed,  about  the 
dear  little  children.  He  seems  to  think,  that  because 
in  the  commission  it  is  said  :  ''  G-o,  teach  all  nations, 
and  baptize  them,"  "  He  that  believeth,  and  is  baptized, 
shall  be  saved" — because  it  is  said  there,  you  must  be- 
lieve, all  baptisnis  must  conform  to  that.  There  is  the 
foundation,  he  says  ;  there  is  the  beginning ;  and  it  is 
wrong  for  you  to  baptize  anybody  at  all  that  does  not 
believe,  because  the  commission  says :  "  He  that  be- 
lieveth, and  is  baptized,  shall  be  saved."  If  he  had 
paid  a  little  attention  to  the  original  of  that  text,  he 
would  have  found  that  there  was  not  so  much  strength 
after  all,  in  that  assertion.  That  which  is  translated 
he  that  believeth^  is  in  the  aorist  participle  active  ;  and 
the  force  of  the  aorist  tense  is  past  time,  completed  action. 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  51 

It  does  not  mean  that  the  individual  is  believing  just  at 
this  time,  but  that  the  individual  has  believed  at  some 
time,  and  has  been  baptized  at  some  time.  For  the  other 
word  rendered  is  baptized  is  in  the  aorist  passive 
participle.  And  then,  when  the  individual  has  be- 
lieved, and  has  been  baptized,  he  shall  be  saved  at 
the  end  of  life.  The  passage  does  not  mean  to  put 
the  believing  in  the  present  tense  :  that  is  not  the  idea 
at  all. 

Now,  in  opposition  to  what  he  has  intimated  (not 
what  he  has  said — for  with  nine  tenths  of  what  he  has 
said  I  most  cordially  agree,  and  so  do  all  the  Pedobap- 
tists  here — for  nobody  ever  doubted  that  when  an  adult 
person  is  baptized^  he  must  believe ;  but  now,  when  he 
comes  here  to  argue  that  a  question  that  he  has  raised 
is  scriptural — how  many  passages  has  he  quoted  [other 
than  those  that  are  self-evidently  inapposite]  to  comment 
upon,  or  to  get  Pedobaptists  to  comment  upon  ?  and  he 
depends  more  upon  their  comments  than  upon  the  pas- 
sages themselves).  When  God  established  the  Church 
by  express  enactment,  he  declared  that  children  should 
receive  the  sign  and  seal  of  the  benefits  of  that  Church, 
and  he  has  never  repealed  that  enactment.  Now,  to 
make  that  appear  (and  if  I  do,  all  that  he  has  intimated 
against  infant  baptism  is  like  throwing  darts  against  a 
brazen  wall),  when  did  God  establish  his  church  ?  I  af- 
firm, and  I  think  I  can  give  good  reason  for  the  affirma- 
tion, that  that  Church  was  established  with  Abraham. 
There  was  the  commencement  of  God's  Church  upon 
the  earth,  and  I  will  show  you  that  the  Saviour  and  his 
apostles  so  regarded  it.  If  you  will  turn  to  the  twelfth 
chapter  of  Genesis,  first,  second,  and  third  verses,  you 
will  find  that  thing  very  plainly  stated  there : 


52  DEBATE    ON    THE 

"  Now  the  Lord  had  said  unto  Abram,  Get  thee  out 
of  the  country,  and  from  thy  kindred,  and  from  thy 
father's  house,  unto  a  land  that  I  will  show  thee  :  and 
I  will  make  of  thee  a  great  nation,  and  I  will  bless  thee, 
and  make  thy  name  great ;  and  thou  shalt  be  a  bless- 
ing ;  and  I  will  bless  them  that  bless  thee,  and  curse 
him  that  curseth  thee  ;  and  in  thee  shall  all  families  of 
the  earth  be  blessed." 

You  will  find  that  in  the  second  verse  of  this  chapter 
one  promise  is  made,  and  in  the  third  verse  there  is  an- 
other promise  made.  In  the  second  verse  God's  prom- 
ise is  :  "I  will  make  of  thee  a  great  nation,  and  I  will 
bless  thee,  and  make  thy  name  great ;  and  thou  shalt 
be  a  blessing  :"  and  in  the  third  verse  he  says  :  ''I  will 
bless  them  that  bless  thee,  and  curse  him  that  curseth 
thee  ;  and  in  thee  shall  all  families  of  the  earth  be  bless- 
ed." Now^,  the  promise  made  in  the  second  verse  refers 
to  the  temporal  blessings  that  God  bestowed  upon  the 
children  of  Israel.  And  you  will  find  that  that  covenant 
was  confirmed  in  the  fifteenth  chapter  of  Genesis,  verses 
eight  to  twenty-one.  I  wish  to  read  to  you  what  is  said 
in  that  fifteenth  chapter  : 

"  And  he  said.  Lord  God,  whereby  shall  I  know  that 
I  shall  inherit  it  ?  And  he  said  unto  him.  Take  me  a 
heifer  of  three  years  old,  and  a  she-goat  of  three  years 
old,  and  a  ram  of  three  years  old,  and  a  turtle  dove,  and  a 
young  pigeon.  And  he  took  unto  him  all  these,  and  di- 
vided them  in  the  midst,  and  laid  each  piece  one  against 
another ;  but  the  birds  divided  he  not.  And  when  the 
fowls  came  down  upon  the  carcasses,  Abram  drove  them 
away.  And  when  the  sun  was  going  down,  a  deep  sleep 
fell  upon  Abram  :  and  lo,  a  horror  of  great  darkness  fell 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  53 

upon  him.  And  lie  said  unto  Abram,  Know  of  a  surety 
that  thy  seed  shall  be  a  stranger  in  a  land  that  is  not  theirs, 
and  shall  serve  them ;  and  they  shall  afflict  them  four  hun- 
dred years  :  and  also  that  nation  whom  they  shall  serve, 
will  I  judge  :  and  afterward  shall  they  come  out  with 
great  substance.  And  thou  shalt  go  to  thy  fathers  in 
peace ;  thou  shalt  be  buried  in  a  good  old  age.  But  in  the 
fourth  generation  they  shall  come  hither  again ;  for  the 
iniquity  of  the  Amorites  is  not  yet  full.  And  it  came 
to  pass  that  when  the  sun  went  down,  and  it  was  dark, 
behold  a  smoking  furnace,  and  a  burning  lamp,  that 
passed  between  these  pieces.  In  that  same  day  the 
Lord  made  a  covenant  with  Abram,  saying.  Unto  thy 
seed  have  I-  given  this  land,  from  the  river  of  Egypt 
unto  the  great  river,  the  river  Euphrates  :  the  Ke- 
nites,  and  the  Kenizzites,  and  the  Kadmonites,  and 
the  Hittites,  and  the  Perizzites,  and  the  Rephaims, 
and  the  Canaanites,  and  the  G-irgashites,  and  the  Jebu- 
sites." 

Now,  at  that  time,  in  that  place,  did  God  make  a 
covenant,  and  give  to  Abram  and  his  seed  the  prom- 
ised land  ?  No,  no,  say  some :  circumcision  was  the 
sign  of  that  covenant.  Let  us  see.  In  the  twelfth 
chapter,  third  verse,  God  says  to  Abram :  ''I  will  bless 
them  that  bless  thee,  and  curse  him  that  curseth  thee  ; 
and  in  thee  shall  all  families  of  the  earth  be  blessed." 
Now,  if  you  will  turn  to  Gen.  xvii.  10-12,  you  will  find 
how  that  covenant  was  sealed  : 

"  This  is  my  covenant  which  you  shall  keep  between 
me  and  you,  and  thy  seed  after  thee  :  Every  man-child 
among  you  shall  be  circumcised.  And  ye  shall  cir- 
cumcise the  flesh  of  your  foreskin :  and  it  shall  be  a 


54  DEBATE    ON    THE 

token  of  the  covenant  betwixt  me  and  you.  And  he 
that  is  eight  days  old  shall  be  circumcised  among  you, 
every  man-child  in  your  generations,  he  that  is  born  in 
the  house,  or  bought  with  money  of  any  stranger,  which 
is  not  of  thy  seed." 

This  is  Grod's  covenant  with  Abram,  to  give  him  all 
the  blessings  of  the  gospel.  Now,  that  this  is  so,  I 
wish  to  call  your  attention  to  a  few  passages  of  Scrip- 
ture, to  show  what  was  the  import  of  circumcision. 
What  did  it  mean  ?  what  did  Grod  mean  by  it  ?  To 
give  to  him  the  promised  land,  the  very  land  that  he 
gave  him  by  that  covenant,  the  sealing  of  which  I  have 
just  read  to  you  in  the  fifteenth  chapter  of  G-enesis  ? 
No.  To  this  end  allow  me  to  read  to  you  a  few  pas- 
sages that  I  have  marked  here.  The  first  I  refer  to,  you 
will  find  in  Romans  iv.  8,  4,  10,  12  : 

"  For  if  Abraham  were  justified  by  works,  he  hath 
whereof  to  glory,  but  not  before  Qod.  For  what  saith 
the  Scripture  ?  Abraham  believed  God,  and  it  was 
counted  unto  him  for  righteousness.  .  .  .  How  was  it 
then  reckoned  ?  when  he  was  in  circumcision,  or  in  un- 
circumcision  ?  Not  in  circumcision,  but  in  uncircum- 
cision?  And  he  received  the  si^n  of  circumcision,  a 
seal  of  the  righteousness  of  the  faith  which  he  had,  yet 
being  uncircumcised  :  that  he  might  be  the  father  of  all 
them  that  believe,  though  they  be  not  circumcised  ;  that 
righteousness  might  be  imputed  unto  them  also." 

Now,  talk  about  circumcision  being  the  seal  of  the 
covenant  of  temporal  privileges,  with  an  inspired  writer 
affirming  that.  Another  passage,  in  the  nineteenth  chap- 
ter of  Exodus,  fifth  and  sixth  verses,  will  throw  some 
light  upon  this  subject : 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  55 

"  Now,  therefore,  if  ye  will  obey  my  voice  indeed, 
and  keep  my  covenant,  then  ye  shall  be  a  peculiar  trea- 
sure unto  me  above  all  people  ;  for  all  the  earth  is  mine  : 
and  ye  shall  be  unto  me  a  kingdom  of  priests,  and  a 
holy  nation.  These  are  the  words  which  thou  shalt 
speak  unto  the  children  of  Israel." 

''A  holy  nation."  Does  not  that  look  something  like 
spiritual  benefits  ?     Again,  Numbers  xi.  1,  3  : 

"And  when  the  people  complained,  it  displeased  the 
Lord  ;  and  the  Lord  heard  it,  and  his  anger  was  kin- 
dled ;  and  the  fire  of  the  Lord  burnt  among  them,  and 
consumed  them  that  were  in  the  uttermost  parts  of  the 
camp.  And  the  people  cried  unto  Moses  :  and  when 
Moses  prayed  unto  the  Lord,  the  fire  was  quenched. 
And  he  called  the  name  of  the  place  Taberah  :  because 
the  fire  of  the  Lord  burnt  among  them." 

Why  ?  These  were  (rod's  people :  he  had  entered 
into  covenant  with  them.  And  when  they  violated  that 
covenant  they  angered  G-od,  and  God's  anger  burned 
against  them.  Now,  I  wish  you  to  compare  Psalms 
Ixxviii.  20-23  : 

"  Behold,  he  smote  the  rock,  that  the  waters  gushed 
out,  and  the  streams  overflowed  ;  can  he  give  bread 
also  ?  can  he  provide  flesh  for  his  people  ?  Therefore 
the  Lord  heard  this,  and  was  wroth :  so  a  fire  was  kin- 
dled against  Jacob,  and  anger  also  came  up  against 
Israel :  because  they  believed  not  in  G-od,  and  trusted 
not  in  his  salvation,  though  he  had  commanded  the 
clouds  from  above,  and  opened  the  doors  of  heaven." 

There  is  another  passage  in  point-blank  proof  that 
this  covenant  was  a  covenant  looking  to  the  spiritual 
blessings  of  the  gospel,  tjie  very  highest  spiritual  bless- 
ings men  were  capable  of  enjoying. 


56 


DEBATE    ON    THE 


In  2d  Chronicles  xxx.  18,  19,  occurs  a  passage 
which  I  think  will  throw  more  light  upon  this  subject : 

"  For  a  multitude  of  the  people,  even  many  of  Ephraim 
and  Manasseh,  Issachar  and  Zehulon,  had  not  cleansed 
themselves,  yet  did  they  eat  the  passover  otherwise  than 
it  was  written  ;  but  Hezekiah  prayed  for  them,  saying, 
The  good  Lord  pardon  every  one  that  prepareth  his  heart 
to  seek  G-od,  the  Lord  God  of  his  fathers,  though  he  he 
not  cleansed  according  to  the  purification  of  the  sanc- 
tuary." 

So  that,  in  the  midst  of  a  system  of  ritual  services, 
yet  the  preparation  of  the  heart  was  the  thing  principally 
looked  to.  My  good  brother  admitted  this,  in  his  com- 
ment upon  the  severe  rebuke  that  the  blessed  Saviour 
administered  to  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees — that  they 
paid  especial  attention  to  the  externals  of  the  law.  I 
will  not  quote  other  passages  from  the  Old  Testament 
Scriptures.  But  I  thought  it  was  proper  that  I  should 
show  what  was  the  idea  in  those  times  about  this  mat- 
ter. I  will  now  go  over  to  the  eleventh  chapter  of  Ro- 
mans, where  you  will  find  a  passage  which  I  think  is 
somewhat  to  the  point.  Mark  me,  I  am  trying  now  to 
ascertain  what  circumcision  is.  Is  it  a  seal  of  temporal 
or  spiritual  blessings?  I  have  brought  some  seven  or 
eight  passages  to  show  directly  that  it  referred  to  the 
highest  spiritual  blessings  in  the  world.  I  now  refer  to 
Romans  xi.  20,  21  : 

"Well;  because  of  unbelief  they  were  broken  off; 
and  thou  standest  by  faith.  Be  not  high-minded,  but 
fear :  for  if  God  spared  not  the  natural  branches,  take 
heed  lest  he  also  spare  not  thee." 

The  Jews  were  broken  off,  because  of  unbelief,  and 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  57 

now  the  Gentiles  stood  by  faith.  Therefore,  they  should 
not  be  high-minded,  but  fear.  The  Grentiles  had  gotten 
into  the  place  of  the  Jews.  In  G-alatians  v  3,  is  a 
passage  I  would  call  attention  to  in  this  connection : 

"  For  I  testify  again  to  every  man  that  is  circumcised, 
that  he  is  a  debtor  to  do  the  whole  law." 

To  obey  G-od's  commandments  in  every  respect.  Not 
to  inherit  the  promised  land,  but  is  a  debtor,  and  binds 
himself  to  obey  God's  commands.  Now,  I  will  collate 
the  seventh  verse  of  the  seventeenth  chapter  of  Genesis, 
with  two  other  passages  of  Scripture,  that  will  show,  I 
think,  that  I  am  not  far  from  the  correct  view  of  this 
subject : 

"And  I  will  establish  my  covenant  between  me  and 
thee,  and  thy  seed  after  thee,  in  their  generations,  for 
an  everlasting  covenant :  to  be  a  God  unto  thee,  and  to 
thy  seed  after  thee." 

Now  this  is  the  very  chapter  in  which  is  recorded  the 
covenant  made  with  Abram.  Turn  now  to  Acts  ii.  39, 
and  what  do  we  find  ? — 

"  For  the  promise  is  unto  you,  and  to  your  children, 
and  to  all  that  are  afar  off,  even  as  many  as  the  Lord 
our  God  shall  call." 

What  promise  ?  The  promise  recorded  in  the  seventh 
verse  of  the  seventeenth  chapter  of  Genesis.  And  in 
the  thirty-eighth  verse  of  the  same  chapter  of  Acts,  it  is 
recorded  that — 

''  Then  Peter  said  unto  them,  Repent  and  be  baptized 

every  one  of  you  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  for  the 

remission  of  sins ;  and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the 

Holy  Ghost?" 

Why  is  this  blessing  bestowed  ? 

3# 


58  DEBATE    ON    THE 

''  For  the  promise  is  unto  you,  and  to  your  children^ 
and  to  all  that  are  afar  off,  even  as  many  as  the  Lord 
our  Grod  shall  call." 

What  promise  ?  The  promise  made  to  Abraham. 
When  fulfilled  ?  Here,  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  Peter 
being  the  judge.  Again,  this  covenant  made  with  Abra- 
ham, in  the  twelfth  chapter,  third  verse  of  G-enesis,  and 
confirmed  in  the  seventeenth  chapter,  eleventh  and 
twefth  verses,  of  Genesis,  is  called  the  gospel  by  the 
inspired  writers,  and  is  identified  as  the  same  preached 
by  the  apostles.  This  very  covenant  is  called  the  gospel. 
I  turn  now  to  the*  third  chapter  of  Acts,  twenty-second 
and  twenty-fifth  verses  inclusive,  in  confirmation  of  this  : 

"  For  Moses  truly  said  unto  the  fathers,  A  prophet 
shall  the  Lord  your  Grod  raise  up  unto  you,  of  your 
brethren,  like  unto  me ;  him  shall  ye  hear  in  all  things, 
whatsoever  he  shall  say  unto  you.  And  it  shall  come 
to  pass,  that  every  soul  wdiich  will  not  hear  that  prophet 
shall  be  destroyed  from  among  the  people.  Yea,  and  all 
the  prophets  from  Samuel,  and  those  that  follow  after, 
as  many  as  have  spoken,  have  likewise  foretold  of  these 
days.  Ye  are  the  children  of  the  prophets,  and  of  the 
covenant  which  Grod  made  with  our  fathers,  saying  unto 
Abraham,  And  in  thy  seed  shall  all  the  kindreds  of  the 
earth  be  blessed." 

Is  not  that  directly  to  the  point?  Does  not  that 
prove,  beyond  refutation,  that  when  G-od  made  that 
covenant  with  Abraham,  it  was  a  covenant  of  spiritual 
blessings  ?  and  does  not  Peter  identify  that  with  the 
Gospel  dispensation  ? 

"  Unto  you  first,  God  having  raised  up  his  Son  Jesus, 
sent  him  to  bless  you,  in  turning  away  every  one  of  you 
from  his  iniquities." 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  59 

In  the  fulfilment  of  his  covenant  this  is  done.  Again, 
in  Romans  iv.  2,  3,  I  think  I  have  some  good  ground  to 
stand  upon : 

"  For  if  Ahraham  were  justified  by  works,  he  hath 
whereof  to  glory,  but  not  before  G-od.  For  what  saith 
the  Scripture  ?  Abraham  believed  G-od,  and  it  was 
counted  unto  him  for  righteousness." 

And  in  the  tenth  verse  of  the  same  chapter  I  find : 

"  How  was  it  then  reckoned  ?  when  he  was  in  cir- 
cumcision, or  in  uncircumcision  ?  Not  in  circumcision, 
but  in  uncircumcision.  And  he  received  the  sign  of  cir- 
cumcision, a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  the  faith  which 
he  had,  yet  being  uncircumcised  ;  that  he  might  be  the 
father  of  all  them  that  believe,  though  they  be  not  cir- 
cumcised ;  that  righteousness  might  be  imparted  unto 
them  also :  and  the  father  of  circumcision  to  them  who 
are  not  of  the  circumcision  only,  but  who  also  walk  in 
the  steps  of  that  faith  of  our  father  Abraham,  which  he 
had,  being  yet  uncircumcised.  For  the  promise,  that 
he  should  be  the  heir  of  the  world,  was  not  to  Abraham, 
or  to  his  seed  through  the  law,  but  through  the  right- 
eousness of  faith." 

I  think  that  is  very  decidedly  conclusive  to  the  point 
to  which  I  quoted  it.  The  sixteenth  and  seventeenth 
verses  of  the  same  chapter  read  thus : 

"  Therefore  it  is  of  faith,  that  it  might  be  by  grace  ; 
to  the  end  the  promise  might  be  sure  to  all  the  seed ; 
not  to  that  only  which  is  of  the  law,  but  to  that  also 
which  is  of  the  faith  of  Abraham,  who  is  the  father  of 
us  all,"  [us,  Roman  Christians,]  "  (as  it  is  written,  I  have 
made  thee  a  father  of  many  nations,)  before  him  who 
believed,  even  Grod  who  quickeneth  the  dead,  and  calleth 
those  things  which  be  not,  as  though  they  were." 


60  DEBATE    ON    THE 

Again,  in  Galatians  iii.  7,  8,  we  have  two  passages  of 
Scripture  very  much  of  the  same  import: 

"  Know  ye,  therefore,  that  they  which  are  of  faith,  the 
same  are  the  children  of  Abraham." 

Identifying  the  Christian  here,  under  the  gospel  dis- 
pensation, with  Abraham,  in  a  variety  of  expressions 
which  cannot  be  mistaken. 

"And  the  Scripture,  foreseeing  that  God  would  jus- 
tify the  heathen  through  faith,  preached  before  the  gos- 
pel unto  Abraham,  saying.  In  thee  shall  all  nations  be 
blessed." 

What !  the  gospel !  Are  you  not  mistaken  upon  that 
subject  ?  No  :  the  gospel  was  preached  unto  Abraham. 
What  was  said  ?  "  In  thee  shall  all  nations  be  blessed." 
That  is  a  synopsis,  that  is  an  epitome  of  the  gospel. 
You  see,  the  Scriptures  talk  very  differently  from  some 
Pedobaptists  even. 

Mr.  Massey  :   That  they  do. 

Mr.  CouLLiNG  :  That  they  do.  In  the  fourteenth  verse 
of  this  same  chapter,  it  is  said  : 

*'  That  the  blessing  of  Abraham  might  come  on  the 
Gentiles  through  Jesus  Christ ;  that  we  might  receive 
the  promise  of  the  Spirit  through  faith." 

Again,  in  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  verses : 

"  Now,  to  Abraham  and  his  seed  were  the  promises 
made.  He  saith  not,  And  to  seeds,  as  of  many  :  but  as 
of  one,  And  to  thy  seed,  which  is  Christ." 

Mark  that,  "  the  law  which  was  4^30  years  after" 
(the  law  given  from  Mount  Sinai),  "cannot  disannul, 
that  it  should  make  the  promise  of  none  effect." 

So  that  the  law  coming  in  between  these  different 
states  of  the  affairs  of  the  Church,  does  not  destroy  its 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  61 

character  as  a  Church,  and  does  not  disannul  and  make 
the  promise  of  none  effect.  In  the  twenty-sixth  verse  of 
the  same  chapter  we  read : 

"  For  ye  are  all  the  children  of  Grod  by  faith  in  Christ 
Jesus.  For  as  many  of  you  as  have  been  baptized 
into  Christ,  have  put  on  Christ.  There  is  neither  Jew 
nor  Greek,  there  is  neither  bond  nor  free,  there  is  nei- 
ther male  nor  female ;  for  ye  are  all  one  in  Christ  Jesus. 
And  if  ye  be  Christ's,  then  are  ye  Abraham's  seed,  and 
heirs  according  to  the  promise." 

Now,  does  not  St.  Paul  sustain  the  position  with 
which  I  started  out,  as  strongly  and  as  positively  as  if 
he  had  anticipated  that  this  issue  would  be  made,  and 
had  determined  to  put  a  quietus  to  it  forever  ?  So  far, 
I  have  attempted  to  show  you,  that,  upon  the  authority 
of  the  Sacred  writers,  circumcision  was  given  as  a  seal 
to  a  covenant  that  bound  those  receiving  it  to  an  obser- 
vance of  the  law  of  God,  and  that  secured  to  the 
recipients  of  it  the  highest  spiritual  blessings  in  the 
world. 

According  to  inspired  authority,  I  have  shown  you 
that  the  benefits  of  that  covenant  are  identified  with 
the  gospel  of  the  Son  of  God  ;  and  that  those  w^ho  are 
enjoying  the  benefits  of  that  gospel,  are  only  enjoying 
the  benefits  of  that  covenant  that  God  made  with  Abra- 
ham, at  the  very  time  that  he  introduced  children 
into  its  benefits,  and  gave  them  the  seal  of  their  title 
to  it. 

Now  I  come  one  step  farther,  and  in  confirmation  of 
what  T  have  already  said,  I  affirm  (and  shall  prove  it, 
as  I  have  proved  the  other  position)  that  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  and  his  disciples  spoke  of  the  Church  as  already 


62  DEBATE    ON    THE 

existing.  My  brother  says,  he  did  not  come  to  repair 
or  continue  an  old  Church,  but  to  build  a  new  one. 
Now,  if  he  is  wiser  than  the  apostles,  and  can  prove 
that,  we  will  yield  to  him.  He  takes  the  position,  that 
it  is  not  scriptural  to  baptize  children.  I  am  trying  to 
prove  that  it  is ; — not  according  to  Pedobaptist  authori- 
ties, but  according  to  the  word  of  God.  In  Matthew 
xviii.  15-lS,  we  find: 

"  Moreover,  if  thy  brother  shall  trespass  against  thee, 
go  and  tell  him  his  fault  between  thee  and  him  alone  : 
if  he  shall  hear  thee,  thou  hast  gained  a  brother.  But 
if  he  will  not  hear  thee,  then  take  with  thee  one  or  two 
more,  that  in  the  mouth  of  two  or  three  witnesses  every 
word  may  be  established." 

This  is  the  direction  given  by  the  blessed  Saviour,  I 
suppose,  for  immediate  action. 

"And  if  he  shall  neglect  to  hear  them,  tell  it  unto 
the  Church ;  but  if  he  neglect  to  hear  the  Church,  let 
him  be  unto  thee  as  a  heathen  man  and  a  publican." 

There  is  a  Church  already  in  existence  :  "  the  Church. '"* 
In  farther  confirmation  of  that,  turn  to  Acts  vii.  37,  38  : 

"  This  is  that  Moses  which  said  unto  the  children  of 
Israel,  A  prophet  shall  the  Lord  your  Grod  raise  up  unto 
you  of  your  brethren,  like  unto  me  :  him  shall  ye  hear. 
This  is  he  that  was  in  the  church  in  the  wilderness, 
with  the  angel  which  spake  to  him  in  the  Mount  Sina, 
and  with  our  fathers  ;  who  received  the  lively  oracles  to 
give  unto  us." 

Ao;ain,  in  Romans  xi.,  beginning  with  the  seventeenth 
verse,  there  is  a  passage  which  perhaps  will  throw  some 
light  on  this  point : 

"And  if  some  of  the  branches  be  broken  off,  and  thou, 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  63 

being  a  wild  olive-tree,  wert  graffed  in  among  them, 
and  with  them  partakest  of  the  root  and  fatness  of  the 
olive-tree  ;  boast  not  against  the  branches.  But  if  thou 
boast,  thou  bearest  not  the  root,  but  the  root  thee." 

Of  whom  is  he  speaking?  Of  the  Christians  at 
Rome  :  not  the  Jews.  I  will  show  you,  by  his  own 
authority,  I  think,  to  whom  this  is  written  : 

"  Paul,  a  servant  of  Jesus  Christ,  called  to  be  an 
apostle  separated  unto  the  gospel  of  G-od  ....  to  ail  that 
be  in  Rome,  beloved  of  God,  called  to  be  saints  ;  grace 
to  you,  and  peace  from  God  our  Father,  and  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ." 

Those  are  the  persons  to  whom  he  is  writing.  He 
says : 

"  Boast  not  against  the  branches.  But  if  thou  boast, 
thou  bearest  not  the  root,  but  the  root  thee.  Thou  wilt 
say  then,  The  branches  were  broken  off,  that  I  might  be 
graffed  in.  Well :  because  of  unbelief,  they  were  broken 
off,  and  thou  standest  by  faith.  Be  not  high-minded, 
but  fear ;  for  if  God  spared  not  the  natural  branches 
[the  Jews],  take  heed  lest  he  also  spare  not  thee.  Be- 
hold, therefore,  the  goodness  and  severity  of  God  :  on 
them  which  fell,  severity ;  but  toward  thee,  goodness,  if 
thou  continue  in  his  goodness  :  otherwise  thou  shalt  also 
be  cut  off.  And  they  also,  if  they  abide  not  still  in  un- 
belief, shall  be  graffed  in  :  for  G-od  is  able  to  graff  them 
in  again.  For  if  thou  wert  cut  out  of  the  olive-tree 
which  is  wild  by  nature,  and  wert  graffed  contrary  to 
nature  into  a  good  olive-tree  :  how  much  more  shall 
these,  which  be  the  natural  branches,  be  graffed  into 
their  own  olive-tree?" 

Here  is  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  called  the  Jews' 


64  DEBATE    ON    THE 

"own  olive  tree."  I  think  that  is  right  clear  :  I  cannot 
conceive,  for  my  life,  how  there  can  be  any  dispute 
or  doubt  about  it.  Again,  I  wish  to  read  you  a  passage 
from  Acts  ii.  47  : 

"  Praising  Grod,  and  having  favor  with  all  the  people. 
And  the  Lord  added  to  the  Church  daily  such  as  should 
be  saved." 

There  is  a  Church  already  established,  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost.  There  it  was  :  there  was  no  council  called 
to  establish  one  ;  it  was  already  in  existence,  for  "  the 
Lord  added  to  the  Church  daily  such  as  should  be 
saved."  Again,  in  the  gospel  of  St.  Matthew,  twenty- 
first  chapter,  beginning  with  the  thirty-third  verse,  there 
is  a  passage  which  struck  me,  a  short  time  since,  as 
very  conclusive  upon  this  subject.  The  blessed  Saviour 
says : 

"  Hear  another  parable  :  There  was  a  certain  house- 
holder, which  planted  a  vineyard,  and  hedged  it  round 
about,  and  digged  a  wine-press  in  it,  and  built  a  tower, 
and  let  it  out  to  husbandmen,  and  went  into  a  far  coun- 
try ;  and  when  the  time  of  the  fruit  drew  near,  he  sent 
his  servants  to  the  husbandmen,  that  they  might  receive 
the  fruits  of  it.  And  the  husbandmen  took  his  servants, 
and  beat  one,  and  killed  another,  and  stoned  another. 
Again,  he  sent  other  servants  more  than  the  first :  and 
they  did  unto  them  likewise.  But  last  of  all  he  sent 
unto  them  his  son,  saying,  They  will  reverence  my  son. 
But  when  the  husbandmen  saw  the  son,  they  said  among 
themselves.  This  is  the  heir  ;  come,  let  us  kill  him, 
and  let  us  seize  on  his  inheritance.  And  they  caught 
him,  and  cast  him  out  of  the  vineyard,  and  slew 
him.     When  the  lord,  therefore,  of  the  vineyard  cometh, 


^SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  65 

what  will  he  do  unto  those  husbandmen?  They  say 
unto  him,  He  will  miserably  destroy  those  wicked  men, 
and  will  let  out  his  vineyard  unto  other  husbandmen, 
which  shall  render  him  the  fruits  in  their  seasons.  Je- 
sus saith  unto  them,  Did  ye  never  read  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, The  stone  which  the  builders  rejected,  the  same 
is  become  the  head  of  the  corner :  this  is  the  Lord's 
doing,  and  it  is  marvellous  in  our  eyes  ?  Therefore  say 
I  unto  you.  The  kingdom  of  God  shall  be  taken  from 
you  [the  Jews],  and  given  to  a  nation  bringing  forth  the 
fruits  thereof.  And  whosoever  shall  fall  on  this  stone 
shall  be  broken :  but  on  whomsoever  it  shall  fall^  it  will 
grind  him  to  powder.  And  when  the  chief  priests  and 
Pharisees  had  heard  his  parables,  they  perceived  that  he 
spake  of  them." 

You  see,  ''  spake  of  them  ;"  and  from  them  the  Lord 
takes  the  kingdom  of  G-od,  which  he  gives  to  the  Gen- 
tiles. That  is  what  he  promised  to  do,  and  the  facts  of 
history  prove  that  he  did  it.  I  refer  you  now  to  He- 
brews iii,,  beginning  with  the  first  verse  : 

"  Wherefore,  holy  brethren,  partakers  of  the  heavenly 
calling,  consider  the  Apostle  and  High  Priest  of  our  pro- 
fession, Christ  Jesus :  who  was  faithful  to  him  that 
appointed  him,  as  also  Moses  was  faithful  in  all  his 
house.  For  this  man  was  counted  worthy  of  more  glory 
than  Moses,  inasmuch  as  he  who  hath  builded  the  house 
hath  more  honor  than  the  house.  For  every  house  is 
builded  by  some  man  ;  but  he  that  built  all  things  is  God. 
And  Moses  verily  was  faithful  in  all  his  house,  as  a  ser- 
vant, for  a  testimony  of  those  things  which  were  to  be 
spoken  after :  but  Christ  as  a  Son  over  his  own  house  ; 
whose  house  are  we,  if  we  hold  fast  the  confidence  and 
the  rejoicing  of  the  hope  firm  unto  the  end." 


66  DEBATE    ON    THE 

In  the  very  house  in  which  Moses  was  a  servant, 
Christ  was  ''  as  a  son  over  his  own  house."  Is  it  possi- 
ble f ,  .  skepticism  itself  to  deny  that  that  covenant  made 
with  Abraham  w^as  the  very  covenant  that  Jesus  Christ 
confirmed  and  fulfilled  on  earth  :  the  very  covenant,  too, 
that  demanded  that  children  should  receive  the  evidence 
and  sign  and  seal  of  their  title  to  its  benefits  and  bless- 
ings. I  refer  you  also  to  Hebrews  iv.,  beginning  with 
the  first  verse  : 

"  Let  us  therefore  fear,  lest  a  promise  being  left  us  of 
entering  into  his  rest,  any  of  you  should  seem  to  come 
short  of  it.  For  unto  us  [the  Jews]  was  the  gospel 
preached,  as  well  as  unto  them  ;  but  the  w^ord  preached 
did  not  profit  them,  not  being  mixed  with  faith  in  them 
that  heard  it.  For  we  which  have  believed  do  enter 
into  rest ;  as  he  said,  As  I  have  sworn  in  my  wrath,  if 
they  shall  enter  into  my  rest :  although  the  works  were 
finished  from  the  foundation  of  the  world." 

And  I  will  call  your  attention  to  the  whole  of  the 
eleventh  chapter  of  Hebrews,  made  up  of  little  obituary 
notices,  of  persons  who  had  died  before  Jesus  Christ 
came  into  the  w^orld.  And  there  is  not  a  man  or  woman 
upon  this  ground  who,  if  his  friend  should  die,  could 
turn  to  this  eleventh  chapter  of  Hebrews  and  state  of 
him  what  Paul  says  of  those,  would  not  feel  satisfied 
that  their  friend  had  gone  to  heaven.  One  single  pas- 
sage from  this  eleventh  chapter  : 

"  By  faith  Noah,  being  w^arned  of  God  of  things  not  seen 
as  yet,  moved  with  fear,  prepared  an  ark  to  the  saving  of 
his  house  ;  by  the  which  he  condemned  the  world,  and 
became  heir  of  the  righteousness  which  is  by  faith." 

Is  not  that  a  commendation,  and  a  commentary,  too, 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  67 

apropos  to  the  position  I  have  taken  ?  And  just  in  per- 
fect accordance  with  it — not  to  prove  it,  for  I  hold  that 
upon  these  subjects  affirmations  do  no  good  ;  the  proof 
is  the  thing — I  wish  to  read  an  extract  from  the  twenty- 
sixth  page  of  Eusebius'  Ecclesiastical  History.  He  was 
writing  about  A.  D.  425  : 

*'  Should  any  one,  beginning  from  Abraham,  and 
going  back  to  the  first  man,  pronounce  those  who  have 
had  the  testimony  of  righteousness.  Christians  in  fact, 
though  not  in  name,  he  would  not  be  far  from  the  truth. 
For  as  the  name  Christian  is  intended  to  indicate  this 
very  idea,  that  a  man,  by  the  knowledge  and  doctrine  of 
Christ,  is  distinguished  by  modesty  and  justice,  by  pa- 
tience and  a  virtuous  fortitude,  ami  by  a  profession  of 
piety  toward  the  one  and  only  true  and  supreme  God  ; 
all  this  was  not  less  studiously  cultivated  by  them  than 

by  us Hence  you  will  find  also  these  pious  persons 

honored  with  the  name  of  Christ,  as  in  the  following 
expression  :  '  Touch  not  my  anointed  ones  [my,  Christ's], 
and  do  my  prophets  no  harm.'  Whence  we  should 
plainly  suppose,  that  the  first  and  most  ancient  religion 
known,  that  of  the  pious  men  that  were  connected  with 
Abraham,  is  the  very  religion  lately  announced  to  all  in 
the  doctrines  of  Christ." 

I  give  you  that  as  the  opinion  of  an  ancient  and 
learned  writer,  living  before  a  controversy  of  this  kind 
was  known  upon  the  face  of  the  earth.  If  there  had 
been  any,  my  opponent  here,  with  all  his  books,  can 
show  when  it  occurred. 

Now  I  go  on  to  say,  that  having  shown  you  by  all 
this  testimony  from  the  Scriptures,  that  when  God 
made    the    promise    to   Abraham,    "In   thee   shall   all 


68  DEBATE    ON    THE 

nations  of  the  earth  be  blessed,"  he  founded,  began  what 
is  called  either  the  gospel,  or  the  Church,  of  God :  and 
I  do  not  care  which  term  you  apply  to  it,  for  the  apostles 
applied  both.  There  was  the  beginning,  the  very  foun- 
dation of  the  Church.  And  at  that  time  God,  by  posi- 
tive enactment,  required  that  children  should  receive 
the  seal  and  sign  of  their  title  to  the  privileges  conferred 
by  this  covenant.  That  I  have  shown,  if  there  can  be 
such  a  thing  as  proving  anything,  by  passages  of  Scrip- 
ture, in  clear,  emphatic  language.  And  now  I  will  go 
on  and  say,  that  when  the  Saviour  came,  he  did  not  ab- 
rogate a  single  principle  laid  down  in  the  Church.  My 
good  brother — and  I  am  very  glad  he  did  it — pointed 
you,  with  a  great  deal  of  force,  to  the  severe  manner  in 
which  Christ  rebuked  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees.  And 
for  doing  what  ?  Acting  in  accordance  with  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  covenants  ?  No  :  but  for  not  doing  so ; 
because  they  lost  the  substance  in  pursuit  of  the  shadow, 
and  forgot  the  spirit  in  the  form.  He  called  them  hypo- 
crites, whited  sepulchres,  outwardly  very  beautiful,  but 
inwardly  ravenous  wolves ;  a  generation  of  vipers. 
Why  ?  Because  they  kept  the  law  of  Moses  ?  Because 
they  kept  to  the  old  dispensation  now  passing  off?  No  : 
but  because  they  had  not  lived  according  to  it.  And  if 
you  wish  a  comment  upon  the  principles  of  the  prece- 
ding dispensation,  clear,  beautiful,  grand,  read  the  fifth, 
sixth,  and  seventh  chapters  of  Matthew's  Gospel,  known, 
the  world  over,  as  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  and  there 
you  will  find  a  confirmation  and  commentary  upon  all 
that  preceded,  which  establishes,  beyond  controversy, 
that  Christ  came  into  the  world  not  to  destroy,  but  to 
fulfil  the   law,  every  jot  and  tittle  of  it.     Some  things 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM. 


69 


he  did:  he  made  some  alterations  in  the  externals  of 
the  Church;   he  did  that  either  in  person,   or  by  his 
apostles.     For  instance— and  I  will  not  refer  to   any 
passage  of  Scripture  to  prove  it,  for  I  know  my  friend  will 
deny  none  but  one  change— the  blessed  Redeemer  estab- 
lished the  Lord's  Supper  in  place  of  the  Passover.    Hav- 
ing finished  the  Passover,  he  then  established  his  own 
sacrament:  ''Eat  this  bread,  drink  this  wine,  until  I 
come  again :"  laying  aside  the  Passover.      You   know, 
that  after  he  rose  from  the  dead,  instead  of  celebrating 
the  seventh  day  of  the  week,  as  the  Jews  do,  the  first 
day  of  the  week  was  observed  in  honor  of  his  resurrec- 
tion.    You  know,  that  after  he  rose  from  the  dead,  just 
before  his  ascension,  he— though  not  formally,  yet  in 
fact— did  lay  aside  the  priests  and  Levites,  as  ministers 
of  the  sanctuary,  there  being  no  longer  any  necessity 
for  them,  and  he  called  other  men  and  qualified  them  by 
the  baptism  of  his  own  spirit,  to  do  what  ?     To  go  and 
preach  the  gospel  to  every  nation  on  the  earth.    One  other 
change  he  made,  and  that  is  the  one  my  good  brother  will 
perhaps  deny.     But  I  affirm  that  he  put  Baptism  in  the 
place  of  circumcision.     I  state  that  simply  as  a  question 
of  fact,  not  as  matter  of  opinion. 

Prior  to  the  coming  of  the  Saviour,  if  a  man  wished 
to  be  introduced  into  the  Church  of  G-od,  to  come  out 
from  heathendom,  and  professes  faith  in  God,  how  was 
he  to  do  it  ?  By  being  circumcised  :  there  was  no  other 
way  possible.  I  suppose  nobody  will  dispute  that  point. 
But  if  a  heathen  man  were  to  come  here  now,  and  my 
good  brother  wanted  to  get  him  into  the  Church  of  God, 
how  would  he  do  it  ?  He  would  baptize  him.  Suppose, 
my  hearers,  I  were  to  say  that  the  boots  and  shoes  you 


70  DEBATE    ON    THE 

wear  now  had  not  taken  the  place  of  the  old  sandals ; 
would  you  believe  it  ?  Or  that  my  coat  had  not  taken 
the  place  of  the  old  Roman  toga  :  would  you  believe  it? 
No  :  it  is  a  fact.  And  if  the  brother  gets  up  here  and 
says  that  Baptism  has  not  taken  the  place  of  circum- 
cision— 

Mr.  Massey  :  Do  you  expect  me  to  prove  a  negative  ? 
You  must  prove  the  affirmative. 

Mr.  CouLLiNG :  I  have  proved  it  already.  It  is  a  fact 
standing  out  upon  the  face  of  things.  The  bare  annun- 
ciation of  it  is  enough  to  prove  it.  I  have  just  stated 
the  simple  facts  ;  the  inference  can  be  drawn  by  any 
one.  If  I  say  that  two  and  two  are  added  together, 
everybody  can  see  that  they  make  four.  If  circumcision 
once  was  the  door  of  entrance  into  the  Church  of  Grod ; 
if  it  was  the  only  manner  in  which  a  man  could  pub- 
licly profess  his  faith  in  Grod,  then  baptism  is  now  the 
only  way  to  enter  the  Church :  that  is  plain.  And  the 
brother  does  not  wish  people  to  commune  with  him 
until  they  have  been  baptized,  and  in  his  way,  too  ; 
because  they  are  not  in  the  Church,  according  to  his 
theory. 

Now  that  I  am  right  in  all  this,  I  wish  to  call  your 
attention  to  one  or  two  passages  of  Scripture.  In 
Matthew  xviii.  19,  20,  and  Mark  xvi.  15,  16,  are  two 
passages  that  my  brother  has  commented  upon,  and 
which  none  of  you  have  forgotten  : 

"  Go  ye  therefore  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing 
them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and 
of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  teaching  them  to  observe  all  things 
whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you,"  &c. 

"  Go  ye  into  all  the  world,  and  preach  the  gospel  to 


SUBJECTS    OP    BAPTISM.  71 

every  creature.  He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall 
be  saved,"  &c. 

There  is  no  doubt  about  it ;  the  Saviour  did  establish 
Baptism.  Now  if  you  will  turn  to  Acts  xv.  6,  23-29, 
inclusive,  you  will  find  the  following  : 

"And  the  apostles  and  elders  came  together  to  con- 
sider of  this  matter." 

If  you  wish  to  know  what  matter,  when  you  go  home 
turn  to  the  fifteenth  chapter  of  Acts  and  read  it.  It  does 
not  affect  my  argument : 

"  And  they  wrote  letters  by  them  after  this  manner  : 
The  apostles,  and  elders,  and  brethren  send  greeting 
unto  the  brethren  which  are  of  the  Grentiles  in  Antioch, 
and  Syria,  and  Cilicia.  Forasmuch  as  we  have  heard,  that 
certain  which  went  out  from  us,  have  troubled  you  with 
words,  subverting  your  souls,  saying.  Ye  must  be  cir- 
cumcised and  keep  the  law  :  to  whom  we  gave  no  such 
commandment :  it  seemed  good  unto  us,  being  assembled 
with  one  accord,  to  send  chosen  men  unto  you,  with  our 
beloved  Barnabas  and  Paul :  men  that  have  hazarded 
their  lives  for  the  name  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  We 
have  sent,  therefore,  Judas  and  Silas,  who  shall  also  tell 
you  the  same  things  by  mouth.  For  it  seemed  good  to 
the  Holy  G-host,  and  to  us,  to  lay  upon  you  no  greater 
burden  than  these  necessary  things  :  that  ye  abstain 
from  meats  offered  to  idols,  and  from  blood,  and  from 
things  strangled,  and  from  fornication ;  from  which 
if  ye  keep  yourselves,  ye  shall  do  well.  Fare  ye 
well." 

Here  is  a  controversy  with  reference  to  circumcision, 
whether  or  not  the  G-entiles  should  be  circumcised.  And 
they  tell  them  in  that  twenty -ninth  verse  what  they 


72  DEBATE    ON    THE 

should  do,  omitting  circumcision,  thereby  annulling  it 
and  repealing  it.  The  Saviour  gives  Baptism,  and  the 
disciples  annul  circumcision,  for  it  is  not  needed.  I  now 
desire  to  read  you  a  passage  from  Philippians  iii.  3,  &c. : 

"  For  we  are  the  circumcision,  which  worship  G-od  in 
the  spirit,  and  rejoice  in  Christ  Jesus,  and  have  no  con- 
fidence in  the  flesh :  though  I  might  also  have  confi- 
dence in  the  flesh.  If  any  other  man  thinketh  he  hath 
whereof  he  might  trust  in  the  flesh,  I  more :  circum- 
cised the  eighth  day,"  &c. 

He  rejects  all  that,  and  yet  says,  "  We  are  of  the  cir- 
cumcision, which  worship  Grod  in  the  spirit,"  &c.  That 
will  be  explained  by  reference  to  Colossians  ii.  11  : 

"  In  whom  also  ye  are  circumcised  with  the  circum- 
cision made  without  hands,  in  putting  ofl"  the  body  of 
the  sins  of  the  flesh  by  the  circumcision  of  Christ." 

Now  spiritual  Baptism  is  there  called  distinctly,  "  the 
circumcision  of  Christ."  Christ's  mode  of  baptizing  the 
people,  is  Christ's  circumcising  the  people,  is  cleansing 
them.  Now,  with  'reference  to  the  objection  my  good 
brother  urged — (he  did  not  bring  it  out  fully,  but  he 
stated  it  sufficiently,  I  think,  to  make  an  impression) — 
he  says  the  Saviour  did  not  come  to  build  up  an  old 
Church,  to  repair  one,  but  to  set  up  a  new  one.  His 
idea  was  that  he  came  to  lay  the  very  foundation  of  one. 
And  if  a  Church  had  commenced  the  very  moment  be- 
fore Christ  came  into  the  world,  it  was  not  the  right 
Church,  merely  because  it  is  written,  "  The  kingdom  of 
Grod  is  at  hand" — the  kingdom  shall  come.  Now,  we 
are  taught  to  pray,  "  Thy  kingdom  come  "  The  idea 
he  seeks  to  impress  upon  your  minds  is,  that  if  a  king- 
dom started  before  that  time,  it  was  not  the  kingdom, 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  73 

I  will  only  say  that  the  passages  of  Scripture  I  have 
read,  the  emphatic,  unequivocal,  plain  declarations  of 
the  word  of  G-od,  give  a  complete  denial  to  all  that  sort 
of  argument,  showing  that  it  will  not  bear  the  light  of 
revelation,  will  not  bear  the  light  of  the  word  of  G-od  : 
God  says  otherwise. 

I  intended — but  if  I  do,  I  will  probably  anticipate  a 
little — to  pursue  a  train  of  thought,  which  I  will  not 
therefore  pursue  just  at  this  time  in  the  order  in  which 
I  had  intended  to  do  it.  I  will  endeavor  to  notice  some 
other  things.  I  will  notice  an  objection  just  here  ;  and 
I  notice  it  here  merely  because  it  has  been  already 
brought  forward.  You  are  not  to  baptize  any  one  at 
all,  unless  he  be  a  believer,  because  the  Scriptures  say : 
"  G-o  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature ;  he  that  be- 
lieveth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved,  but  he  that  be- 
iieveth  not  shall  be  damned."  Then,  if  a  person  is 
incompetent  to  believe,  he  is  incompetent  to  be  bap- 
tized.    Is  not  that  the  argument  ? 

If  he  cannot  believe,  you  have  no  right  to  baptize 
him.  That  argument  is  applied  to  infants.  Infants 
cannot  believe,  and  therefore  they  have  no  right  to  be 
baptized.  Infants  cannot  be  taught ;  and  not  being  able 
to  be  taught,  they  are  not  able  to  believe,  and  therefore 
they  are  not  to  be  baptized.  Now,  I  suppose,  if  that  is 
a  right  mode  of  reasoning  upon  one  clause  of  this  pas- 
sage, it  is  upon  another.  And  if  infants  cannot  believe, 
they  cannot  be  saved.  Now,  I  do  not  say  that  is  the 
meaning  of  the  text,  for  I  do  not  believe  it.  And  if 
that  is  his  argument,  he  must  get  over  it  himself.  This 
commission  is  a  circle,  prescribing  everything  that  we 
are  to  do.     "We  are  bound  up  and  hemmed  up  by  it. 

4 


74  DEBATE    ON    THE 

Very  well ;  if  you  do  not  go  outside  of  that  circle,  if 
that  is  the  argument,  you  will  consign  to  everlasting 
ruin  all  infants  who  die  in  infancy.  If  infants  cannot 
be  baptized  because  they  cannot  believe,  upon  the  same 
principle  they  are  to  be  damned  because  they  cannot 
believe.  And  there  are  men  in  the  world  who  have  been 
driven  to  unbelief  by  that  sort  of  argument ;  and  others 
who  have  held  that  Infants  who  die  are  annihilated,  be- 
cause, they  say,  a  good  and  merciful  God  could  not 
damn  them  forever.  I  have  seen  that  in  print.  I  do 
not  say  my  brother  believes  that.  I  believe  he  is  as 
much  opposed  to  it  as  I  am.  But  he  cannot  come  to 
any  other  logical  conclusion  except  that,  if  he  argues 
as  he  has  done. 


MR.  MASSEY'S  SECOND  ADDRESS. 

Mr.  Massey  :  I  am  very  forcibly  reminded,  by  the 
course  pursued  by  Mr.  Coulling,  of  a  story  I  once  heard. 
A  gentleman  discovered  a  man  riding  backw^ard  and 
forward  at  a  very  rapid  rate.  At  last  he  went  to  him 
and  inquired  the  cause  of  his  travelling  over  that  same 
piece  of  road  so  much.  "  Why,"  says  the  man,  ^'  I 
have  been  travelling  a  long  time,  and  this  is  the  only 
trotting-ground  I  have  yet  found,  and  I  am  determined 
to  enjoy  it."  Perhaps  the  gentleman  is  somewhat  like 
a  lawyer  who  wrote  off  his  speech,  just  as  he  seems  to 
have  written  his,  but  who  found,  upon  examination  of 
his  testimony,  that  it  w^as  all  foreign  to  what  he  had 
written.  When  he  commenced  his  speech,  the  judge 
reminded  him  that  he  had  mistaken  the  testimony  ;  the 
lawyer,  after  an  embarrassed  pause,  replied,  "  May  it 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  75 

please   your   honor,  it  is   in  my  speech,   and    I   must 
speak  ity 

Seriously,  however,  there  has  been  a  course  pursued 
here  which  must  strike  every  one  as  anomalous,  unfair, 
and  not  courteous.  You  remember  that,  on  a  former 
occasion,  when  the  respondent  on  this  proposition  had 
the  affirmative,  he  did  not  discuss  it  ten  minutes  before 
he  said  that  the  proposition  he  affirmed  did  not  make  an 
issue ;  and  he  so  changed  his  position  as  to  place  him- 
self on  the  negative.  "When  I  found  that  that  discus- 
sion would  not  be  reported  and  published,  I,  through 
courtesy,  yielded  to  what  he  seemed  to  look  upon  as  a 
dire  necessity,  in  order  that  he  might  be  able  .to  make 
even  a  show  of  argument  in  favor  of  sprinkling  and  pour- 
ing. Upon  the  present  occasion  I  am  the  affirmant. 
And  I  trust  I  may  never  be  under  the  necessity  of  say- 
ing to  an  audience  like  this,  that  a  proposition  of  my 
oiun  framing  does  not  make  an  issue,  or  to  show  so 
plainly  that  I  am  unable  to  sustain  my  own  proposi- 
tion. I  have  led  in  this  discussion  in  a  manner  which, 
I  think,  must  strike  every  one  as  the  correct  manner  for 
obtaining  clear  and  correct  information  of  the  teachings 
of  the  word  of  G-od  upon  this  subject.  But  the  gentle- 
man, finding  that  he  was  unable  to  follow,  has  presented 
a  course  upon  this  subject  that  will  cause  the  report, 
whenever  published,  to  read  very  much  as  though  we 
were  addressing  two  distinct  congregations,  and  having 
but  little,  if  any,  connection  between  our  arguments. 

I  am  glad  to  find,  however,  that  there  seems  to  be 
one  good  reason  for  the  course  he  pursues.  He  assures 
you  that  he  and  all  Pedobaptists  agree  loith  nine  tenths 
of  all  that  I  have  said.     Then,  nothing  additional  is 


76  DEBATE    ON    THE 

needed  to  sustain  what  I  have  thus  far  said.  By  way 
of  returning  the  compliment,  I  must  say  to  him  that  I 
disagree  with  about  nine  tenths  of  what  he  has  said. 
Anomalous  and  unexpected  as  the  course  pursued  by  the 
gentleman  was,  in  leaving  the  subject-matter  under  dis- 
cussion as  presented  by  the  affirmant,  I  confess  I  was 
more  surprised  at  the  awkward  and  clumsy  manner  in 
which  he  introduced  his  argument.  If  you  had  not,  by 
previous  information,  been  apprized  of  his  design,  you 
would  not  have  discovered,  until  very  near  the  close  of 
his  address,  what  his  object  was.  Instead  of  presenting 
the  propositions  he  wished  to  establish  in  a  clear  and 
lucid  manner — in  such  a  manner  as  "the  sw?z,"  or  even 
one  of  "  his  satellites,''''  might  have  been  expected  to  pre- 
sent it — there  has  been  a  degree  of  clumsiness,  awk- 
wardness, and  ambiguity,  about  his  position  and  argu- 
ments, that  renders  it  extremely  difficult  to  produce 
anything  like  order  out  of  what  he  has  said ;  yet  I  have 
noted  the  gentleman  closely.  I  have  taken  down  every 
reference  he  has  given,  and  when  he  shall  have  com- 
pleted his  argument  upon  the  unity  of  the  covenants ; 
upon  circumcision  yielding  to  baptism  ;  and  all  that  per- 
tains to  that  matter,  I  pledge  you,  if  it  be  possible  to 
bring  order  out  of  chaos,  I  will  set  before  you  an  argu- 
ment upon  this  subject  that  will  show  you  that  he  is 
just  as  wide  of  the  mark  as  he  supposed  me  to  be  on  a 
former  occasion,  when  he  said  I  was  as  far  from  the 
subject  as  the  distance  between  the  earth  and  the  sun. 

Not  intending,  therefore,  at  the  present  time,  to  at- 
tempt any  reply  to  what  he  has  said,  I  will  proceed  to 
the  argument  direct,  and  come  up  with  him  when  he 
shall,  as  I  before  remarked,  have  gotten  through  with 
his  argument. 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  77 

I  was  a  little  disposed  to  look  at  the  book  whicli  my 
good  brother  said  he  read,  not  as  "  affirmation,"  but  as 
''joroq/*." 

Mr.  CouLLiNG :  No,  sir :  not  as  proof ;  but  simply  as 
giving  an  expression  of  the  opinion  of  a  wise  man,  liv- 
ing at  an  early  day.  I  had  plenty  of  Bible  proof  with- 
out that. 

Mr.  Massey  :  I  supposed  it  was  to  prove  the  correct- 
ness of  his  opinion,  that  he  introduced  this  witness ; 
but  it  seems  he  only  wanted  the  luitnessh  opinion.  I 
find  he  has  called  to  the  stand,  as  a  witness,  one  whose 
opinions  he  wishes  to  give — opinions^  not  statements  of 
fficts.  This  witness  does  not  state  facts ;  he  is  not 
brought  forward  ''  as  proof,"  but  merely  to  give  his 
opinions.  I  find  that  this  book  is  "published  by  T. 
Mason  &  G-.  Lane, /or  the  Methodist  Episcopal  ChurchP 
Well,  I  expect  the  gentleman  finds  opinions  there  that 
agree  with  his  own  very  well. 

Mr.  CouLLiNG :  Is  the  book  written  by  a  Methodist  ? 

Mr.  Massey  :  It  is  published  by  Methodists,  for  the 
use  of  Methodists. 

Mr.  CouLLiNG  :  It  is  an  old  history  ;  that  is  all. 

Mr.  Massey  :  The  gentleman  makes  one  honest  con- 
fession, as  he  goes  along;  that  is,  that  the  Bible  differs 
very  materially  from  Pedobaptist  authors.  Well,  I  am 
glad  he  made  that  confession — there  will  be  no  neces- 
sity for  proof  to  establish  it.  That  is  a  truth  that  I 
endorse.     The  Bible  and  Pedobaptists  do  differ. 

Mr.  CouLLiNG :  I  did  not  say  that  the  Bible  and  all 
Pedobaptists  differ.  I  said  that  the  Bible  and  some 
Pedobaptists  [pointing  to  a  book  there  that  the  gentle- 
man had  quoted  from] — that  they  differed.     There  is  a 


78  DEBATE    ON    THE 

great  difference  between  saying  that  the  Bible  and  Pedo- 
baptists,  and  the  Bible  and  some  Pedobaptists,  differ. 

Mr.  Masse Y  :  I  will  take  the  gentleman's  explanation. 
Now,  to  which  book  did  he  refer  ?  I  have  been  present- 
ing his  own  Church  authorities — the  strongest  array  of 
testimony  :  brought  not  only  from  Pedobaptist  ranks 
generally,  but  from  the  most  able  men  in  the  "  Methodist 
Churchy  Now,  is  the  gentleman's  explanation  designed 
to  throw  light  upon  the  subject,  or  is  it  an  effort  to  parry 
the  confession  he  made,  and  to  mislead  the  judgment 
of  the  audience  ? 

But,  to  return  to  the  direct  argument.  The  next  case 
of  baptism  to  which  I  will  call  your  attention*  is  found 
in  Acts  xvi.  32-34.  It  is  here  that  we  find  the  account 
of  the  baptism  of  the  jailor  and  his  household  : 

*' And  they  spake  unto  him  the  word  of  the  Lord,  and 
to  all  that  were  in  his  house.  And  he  took  them  the 
same  hour  of  the  night,  and  washed  their  stripes  ;  and 
was  baptized,  he  and  all  his,  straightway.  And  when 
he  had  brought  them  into  his  house,  he  set  meat  before 
them,  and  rejoiced,  believing  in  G-od,  with  all  his  house." 

Dr.  Clarke,  one  of  these  "  some  Fedohaptists^^^  says 
on  this  passage : 

"  Verse  31.  Believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus.]  Receive  the 
religion  of  Christ,  which  we  preach,  and  let  thy  house- 
hold also  receive  it,  and  ye  shall  be  all  placed  in  the 
sure  way  to  final  salvation." 

This  is  what  Paul  and  Silas  taught  the  jailor  and  his 
house.     Dr.  Clarke  continues  : 

"  Verse  32.  And  they  spake  unto  him  the  ivord  of  the 
Lord.]  Thus,  by  teaching  him,  and  all  that  were  in 
his  house,  the  doctrine  of  the  Lord^  they  plainly  pointed 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  ^9 

out  to  them  the  way  of  salvation.  And  it  appears  that 
he  and  his  whole  family,  who  were  capable  of  receiving 
instructions,  embraced  this  doctrine,  and  showed  the  sin- 
cerity of  their  faith  by  immediately  receiving  baptism." 
Now  look,  if  you  please,  at  the  singular  remarks  made 
by  the  gentleman  in  his  commencement.  He  said  that 
I  argued  this  proposition  as  though  the  simple  question 
was,  whether  adults  must  exercise  faith  before  they 
were  baptized.  I  am  sure  that  nothing  short  of  the 
confusion  which  the  gentleman  appears  to  have  been 
laboring  under,  prevented  him  from  observing  that  I 
started  out  with  the  proposition,  and  have  from  then 
till  the  present  time  maintained,  that  faith  was  a  pre- 
requisite to  baptism  in  every  case  of  its  administration 
under  divine  authority.  If  he  wants  broader  ground 
than  that,  I  cannot  accommodate  him.  I  assert  again, 
that  in  every  case  where  we  find  baptism  administered 
in  the  New  Testament,  we  find  that  faitli  v/as  required 
as  a  pre-requisite.  Let  me  turn  back  for  a  moment  to 
the  commission.  Baptism  is  a  positive  institution  of 
the  gospel,  deriving  all  its  authority  from  him  who  insti- 
tuted and  enjoined  it.  It  does  not  arise,  as  a  moral 
obligation,  from  certain  relationships,  or  the  nature  of 
things.  But  the  duty  of  the  believer  to  submit  to  it 
arises  wholly  from  the  fact  that  Jesus  Christ,  the  King 
in  Zion^  instituted  the  ordinance,  and  enjoined  its  ob- 
servance upon  all  Mb  followers. 

,  Again  :  a  command  to  baptize  believers,  is  virtu- 
ally a  prohibition  to  baptize  anybody  else.  Suppose 
that  some  of  you  gentlemen  were  appointed  to  act  as 
commissioners  of  election,  and  you  were  to  find  in  the 
law  bestowing  the  right  of  suffrage  such  directions  as 


80 


DEBATE    ON    THE 


these  :  "  Every  white  male  citizen,  twenty-one  years  of 
age,  who  has  been  a  resident  of  the  county,  city,  or  elec- 
tion district  in  which  he  proposes  to  vote,  for  twelve 
months  next  preceding  the  time  of  offering  his  vote, 
shall  be  entitled  to  the  right  of  suffrage."  Would  you 
not  understand  that  you  were  forbidden  by  that  language 
to  allow  anybody  else  to  vote  ?  Suppose  some  man  comes 
to  you  and  says :  "  Sirs,  by  this  restriction  you  reflect 
upon  my  patriotism,  or  upon  my  intelligence ;  I  am 
twenty  years  and  ten  months  of  age,  and  you  certainly 
do  not  suppose  that  the  w^ant  of  two  months  is  a  proper 
reason  why  I  should  be  debarred  from  the  exercise  of 
this  privilege."  You  point  him  to  your  commission, 
and  say  to  him  :  "  I  am  acting  under  positive  authority ; 
you  must  inquire  of  the  legislators  why  they  did  not 
make  provision  for  you  ;  my  duty  is  to  observe  the  regu- 
lations which  they  have  enacted."  Another  man  says 
to  you:  "I  am  forty-five  years  old;  I  have  borne  arms 
in  my  country's  defence  ;  I  have  bared  my  bosom  to  the 
storm ;  I  have  shed  my  blood — ^here  are  the  honorable 
scars  of  patriotism  which  I  bear  I  I  have  resided  in  the 
county  for  the  last  eleven  months,  and  do  you  presume 
to  deny  me  the  right  of  elective  franchise  ?"  You  would 
say  to  him :  "  I  appreciate  your  valor  and  your  patriot- 
ism ;  I  do  not  question  your  intelligence ;  but  I  am  act- 
ing under  positive  authority  :  the  law  says  I  shall  allow 
all  to  vote  who  are  twenty-one  years  old,  and  have  resided 
in  the  county  for  twelve  months  preceding  the  election  ; 
I  have  no  right  to  do  either  7nore  or  less.''^  Who  would 
question  the  correctness  of  your  decision?  Now,  why  is 
it  th  it  common  men,  men  of  ordinary  intelligence  in 
the  I  ffairs  of  life,  can  understand  so  plainly,  and  yet  the 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  81 

would-be-great  divines,  men  who  are  said  to  ''shed  the 
rays  of  the  sun's  light  upon  the  subjects  they  discuss," 
are  so  perfectly  befogged  when  they  come  to  inspired 
writings  that  they  cannot  understand  the  plainest  lan- 
guage ? 

Jesus  Christ  had  before  authorized  some  of  his  disci- 
ples to  "go  into  the  cities,  not  of  the  Samaritans,  nor 
in  the  way  of  the  Grentiles,  but  rather  to  the  lost  sheep 
of  the  house  of  Israel."  But  now  he  gives  them  the 
commission  to  go  and  teach  all  men,  then  baptize  them, 
and  then  to  teach  them  all  the  duties  of  subsequent  life. 
Is  there  any  ambiguity  about  this  ?  Not  a  particle  of 
it.  (A  good  brother  before  me  bows  assent,  and  I  know 
he  is  an  ultra  Methodist.)  I  ask  you,  then,  does  not  the 
subject,  as  it  is  presented  before  you,  commend  itself  to 
the  understanding  of  every  rational  being  ?  And  if  it 
were  not  to  serve  a  purpose — to  sustain  a  theory  unsup- 
ported by  any  authority  in  this  commission — by  any 
authority  in  the  word  of  God,  from  alpha  to  omega^ 
would  there  be  any  controversy  about  it  ?  The  gentle- 
man says,  here  was  a  man  [Eusebius]  who  wrote  before 
there  was  any  controversy  about  this  subject.  If  he 
wrote  before  the  third  century,  he  did,  for  there  certainly 
was  no  controversy  about  infant  baptism  before  that 
time,  as  no  such  thing  as  infant  baptism  had  ever  been 
heard  of.  I  will  show  you  the  time  when,  and  the  cir- 
cumstances under  which,  it  was  introduced.  And  if  the 
gentleman  will  only  go  with  me  through  the  subject,  I 
will  then  go  back  with  him  over  all  the  various  pas- 
sages he  has  quoted,  and  show  him  that  he  has  quoted 
passages  that,  when  rightly  understood,  will  completely 
overthrow  his  whole  theory, 


82  DEBATE    ON    THE 

I  am  sorry  the  gentleman  has  placed  me  under  the 
necessity  of  taking  back  many  of  the  complimentary 
remarks  I  made  of  him  at  the  close  of  our  former  dis- 
cussion. He  has  read  passages  of  Scripture  which, 
when  properly  understood,  are  as  diametrically  opposite 
to  his  views  of  the  subject  as  the  north  is  to  the  south. 

Now  let  us  see  what  Pedobaptists  say  of  the  baptism 
of  the  jailor  and  his  household.  Mr.  Barnes'  note  is 
long,  but  I  will  give  it  you  : 

"■Believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.]  This  was  a  sim- 
ple, a  plain,  and  an  effectual  direction.  They  did  not  direct 
him  to  use  the  means  of  grace,  to  pray,  or  to  continue  to 
seek  for  salvation.  They  did  not  advise  him  to  delay,  or 
to  wait  for  the  mercy  of  Grod.  They  told  him  to  believe  at 
once ;  to  commit  his  agitated  and  guilty  and  troubled  spirit 
to  the  Saviour,  with  the  assurance  that  he  should  find 
peace.  They  presumed  that  he  would  understand  what 
it  was  to  believe ;  and  they  commanded  him  to  do  the 
thingP 

My  good  brother  seems  not  to  understand  what  I 
mean  by  beliefs  or  to  think  that  anybody  here  knows 
what  I  mean  when  I  say  believe.  Yet  Mr.  Barnes  sup- 
posed that  the  jailor  and  his  household  would  understand 
what  was  meant,  when  he  was  told  to  believe  on  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  he  should  be  saved.  Mr.  Barnes 
continues : 

"And  this  was  the  uniform  direction  which  the  early 
preachers  gave  to  those  inquiring  the  way  to  life.  See 
note.  Matt.  xvi.  16 ;   Comp.  note.  Acts  viii.  22. 

'"''And  thy  house.]  And  thy  family.  That  is,  the  same 
salvation  is  equally  adapted  to  and  offered  to  your  fam- 
ily.    It  does  not  mean  that  his  family  would  be  saved 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  83 

simply  by  Ids  believing ;  but  that  the  offers  had  refer- 
ence to  them  as  well  as  to  himself ;  that  they  might  be 
saved  as  well  as  he.  His  attention  was  thus  called  at 
once,  as  every  man's  should  be,  to  his  family.  He  was 
reminded  that  they  needed  salvation,  and  he  was  pre- 
sented with  the  assurance  that  they  might  unite  with 
him  in  the  peace  and  joy  of  redeeming  mercy.  Comp. 
note,  chap.  ii.  39.  It  may  be  implied  here,  that  the 
faith  of  a  father  may  be  expected  to  be  the  means  of  the 
salvation  of  his  family.  It  often  is  so  in  fact ;  but  the 
direct  meaning  of  this  is,  that  salvation  was  offered  to 
his  family,  as  well  as  to  himself :  implying,  that  if  they 
believed,  they  also  should  be  saved. 

"  To  all  that  were  inliis  house.]-  Old  and  young,  they 
instructed  them  in  the  doctrines  of  religion,  and,  doubt- 
less, in  the  nature  of  the  ordinances  of  the  gospel,  and 
then  baptized  the  entire  family." 

The  gentleman  talks  about  proving  from  the  book.  I 
very  much  wish  he  had  brought  his  authorities  with 
him,  that  they  could  be  examined.  I  conclude  that  if 
his  authorities  had  been  such  that  he  was  willinsf  to 
submit  them  to  examination,  he  would  have  them  here. 
I  brought  mine  with  me  :  questions  may  arise  about  the 
correctness  of  quotations,  and  I  do  not  intend  to  quote 
from  mere  memory,  but  to  bring  forward  the  authorities 
I  quote,  and  to  subject  them  to  the  examination  of  my 
opponent,  to  assure  him  that  every  quotation  I  make  is 
correct.  And  I  verily  believe  it  would  be  a  just  course, 
if  the  moderators  were  to  rule  out  all  testimony  that  is 
not  presented  in  legitimate  form.  And  I  believe  if  I 
were  to  raise  the  point,  that  a  man  should  have  here  the 
authorities  from  which  he  quotes,  it  would  be  sustained. 


84  DEBATE    ON    THE 

Mr.  CouLLiNG  :  Have  I  brought  any  such  testimony 
at  all  to-day  ? 

Mr.  Massey  :  If  you  have  brought  any  at  all^  you 
have.  You  certainly  have  not  read  from  authorities 
here.  I  have  remarked  to  you,  over  and  over  again, 
my  hearers,  that  while  I  might  bring  a  host  of  Baptist 
works  to  establish  the  position  I  occupy,  I  have  brought 
Pedobaptist  works :  works  of  those  who  have  been 
constrained  to  admit,  upon  every  passage  I  present, 
the  correctness  of  my  views.  Such  testimony  is  the 
strongest  that  can  be  presented — testimony  from  the  op- 
posite ranks  :  proving  the  correctness  of  my  views.  Do 
you  want  stronger  testimony  ?  I  now  refer  you  to  01s- 
hausen,  vol.  3,  page  351 : 

"  The  remark  in  verse  32,  that  Paul  preached  not  only 
to  the  jailor, 'but  also  to  his  house  (ev  t§  olKia  avrov)^ 
is  plainly  not  favorable  to  the  view  that  infant  children 
are  included  under  this  expression,  for  Paul  could  deliver 
no  discourse  to  them." 

This  man  had,  doubtless,  read  Paul's  declaration  that 
"  faith  cometh  by  hearing,  and  hearing  by  the  word  of 
God."  And  he  understood,  as  every  intelligent  man 
ought  to  understand,  that  before  men  have  the  capacity 
to  believe,  they  must  be  capable  of  hearing  and  under- 
standing testimony.  And  hence  Paul,  as  says  Mr.  01s- 
hausen,  addressed  no  argument^  delivered  no  discourse 
to  infant  children. 

[Intermission.] 


Mr.    CouLLiNG :     Before    proceeding    to   the    train    of 
thought  that  I  was  trying  to  pursue  at  the  time  that 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  85 

the  hour  allotted  to  me  expired,  I  wish  to  refer  to  a  few 
things  suggested  by  the  remarks  of  my  friend  who  last 
addressed  you.  As  to  the  confusion  in  the  train  of 
thought  that  I  was  endeavoring  to  present — as  to  the 
awkward  and  clumsy  manner  in  Avhich  those  thoughts 
were  presented,  I  am  willing  to  leave  all  that  to  you. 

The  argument  attempted  to  be  introduced  just  at  this 
point  claims  my  attention,  because  it  is  an  argument^ 
intended  to  be  such.  It  is  affirmed,  that  in  every  case 
in  which  baptism  is  mentioned  in  the  Bible,  belief  or 
faith  is  made  a  prerequisite  to  baptism.  It  is  again 
affirmed  that  the  commission  requiring  the  apostles  to 
baptize  those  that  believe,  necessarily  excludes  all  others 
than  those  who  do  believe,  from  the  privilege  of  receiv- 
ing baptism.  Well,  these  were  two  bold  assertions, 
unsupported  by  argument,  and  unsupported  by  evidence. 
They  form  what  logicians  call  di  petitio  principii ;  it  is 
taking  for  granted  the  very  thing  that  we  are  here  to 
discuss,  that  he  is  here  to  prove.  Now,  if  you  will 
allow  me  to  argue  in  that  way,  and  just  assume  the 
points  at  issue  between  us,  I  can  cut  the  Grordian  knot 
in  a  moment,  and  just  say  that  infants  ought  to  be  bap- 
tized, and  that  will  be  proof  of  it.  But  he  will  say  he 
does  not  like  that  way  of  arguing,  and  when  it  comes 
from  him,  I  do  not  like  it  myself.  When  he  says  that 
the  command  is,  "  Gro  and  disciple  all  nations"  (as  he 
seems  to  think  it  should  read) — the  question  between 
us  is,  Did  the  blessed  Redeemer  intend  to  confine  that 
discipling  to  those  who  hear  the  gospel  and  receive  it, 
and  those,  therefore,  who  could  believe  the  gospel  ?  Or 
did  he  intend  to  include  others  ?  How  are  we  to  find 
that  out?    Matthew  does  not  tell  us  in  these  few  words: 


86  DEBATE    ON    THE 

nor  does  Mark  affirm  that  much.  And  we  are  compelled 
to  go  to  other  portions  of  the  Bible  to  find  that  informa- 
tion. That  was  the  very  thing  I  was  trying  to  do  ; 
the  very  thing  (notwithstanding  all  the  confusion  that 
happened  to  be  about  some  persons),  that  it  was  clear 
to  very  many  of  you  that  I  was  doing,  and  doing  to 
right  good  purpose,  when  I  stopped. 

This  illustration  was  attempted :  suppose  the  com- 
missioners appointed  to  superintend  elections  were  to 
exclude  a  young  man  twenty  years  and  ten  months  old — 
would  not  permit  him  to  vote.  He  says  :  Do  you  intend 
to  reflect  upon  me  ?  Well,  they  say,  we  know  nothing 
about  it :  we  act  according  to  the  law.  The  special 
enactment  of  the  legislature,  or,  if  you  choose,  of  the 
court — for  I  believe  that  sometimes  the  court  appoints 
the  commissioners — the  legislature  could,  at  any  rate  ; 
the  legislation,  prescribing  the  prerequisites  of  the  voter, 
is  compared  with  this  commission.  Now,  is  there  any- 
thing in  all  that  analogous  to  this  ?  And  suppose  they 
are  analogous.  The  gentleman  says  he  refers  the  young 
man  to  the  legislators.  That  is  the  reference  I  am 
making ;  I  go  to  the  very  source  of  information,  to  the 
Scriptures,  upon  that  point :  and  I  hear  them  answering 
in  a  very  different  tone,  and  to  a  very  different  purpose, 
from  the  assumption  the  gentleman  makes,  as  to  what 
the  commission  means.  And  then,  again,  he  says  I  seek 
to  ''  serve  a  purpose,  unsupported  by  the  Bible  from 
alpha  to  omega." 

Mr.  Massey  :  Did  you  understand  me  to  say  that  of 
you  personally? 

Mr.  CouLLiNG  :  I  did. 

Mr.  Massey  :  I  disclaim  it. 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  87 

Mr.  CouLLiNG  :  I  am  very  glad  of  it. 

Mr.  Massey:    I  am  incapable  of  making  a  personal 
reflection  of  that  kind. 

Mr.  CouLLiNG :  Then  I  will  say  nothing  more  about 
that.  In  the  course  of  the  argument  I  was  making, 
1  had  come  down  to  this  point :  I  had  been  en- 
deavoring to  prove  that  when  the  Church  was  estab- 
lished, it  had  its  origin  with  Abraham.  I  had  brought 
forward  numerous  passages  of  Scripture  that  clearly 
showed  that  circumcision,  which  was  the  seal  of  the 
covenant  to  the  seed  of  Abraham,  was  the  seal  of  a 
covenant  that  granted  to  those  embraced  in  it  spiritual 
blessings,  and  that  Paul  and  Peter  not  only  alluded  to  it, 
but  pointing  to  it  in  the  most  direct  manner  you  can 
conceive  of,  identiiied  with  the  very  covenant  made  with 
Abraham  the  gospel  they  were  then  preaching.  I  do  not 
ask  you  to  believe  that :  that  is  what  the  Bible  says,  what 
the  apostles  say.  I  did  not  ask  you  to  take  one  single 
thing  for  granted,  but  quoted  chapter  and  verse.  I 
went  on  then  to  show  you  that  the  blessed  Redeemer 
and  his  disciples,  when  they  came  into  the  world,  spoke 
of  the  Church  as  already  existing,  and  I  proved  it  be- 
yond controversy.  It  is  so  :  there  is  no  doubt  about  it.- 
I  shall  now  proeeed  to  show  you  another  thing  :  that  if 
the  proposition,  or  the  expression,  that  is  the  subject  of 
discussion  here  to-day,  is  to  be  taken  literally,  "  that 
no  one  is  to  be  baptized  unless  he  believes^''''  then,  I  ask, 
who  is  capable  of  administering  the  rite  of  baptism? 
Philip  went  out  baptizing,  and  he  baptized  a  Simon 
Magus.  Was  he  a  fit  subject  for  baptism  ?  Or  is 
Philip  to  be  blamed  for  baptizing  him  ?  Who  does  not 
knov/  that  it  is  a  possible  case  for  any  man  to  be  im- 


88  DEBATE  ON  THE 

posed  on  in  this  manner  ?  And  if  you  say  I  am  not  to 
baptize  anybody  until  I  know  that  that  person  does  be- 
lieve, who  am  I  to  baptize  ?  how  am  I  to  know  it  ? 
Now  the  gentleman  does  not  say  a  profession  of  faith, 
but  believers^  "those  known  to  be  believers  ;"  that  is  the 
term  he  employs.  And  when  you  ask  him  to  define  the 
term,  he  defines  it  to  mean  not  only  one  who  believes  in 
Christ  and  in  the  gospel,  but  he  narrows  it  down,  and 
says  that  he  is  not  to  baptize  anybody  who  is  not  a  con- 
verted man.  How  is  it  possible  to  know  that?  Simon 
Masfus  was  not  a  converted  man  :  he  was  in  the  bonds 
of  iniquity,  actuated  by  improper  motives  at  the  very 
time  he  was  baptized.  Now,  I  confess  this  much,  that 
I  would  not  baptize  an  adult  person  (and  I  do  not  know 
a  Pedobaptist  that  would)  who  would  come  to  me  and 
say,  I  do  not  believe  a  word  in  the  Bible ;  it  is  all  a  cun- 
ningly-devised fable ;  and  then  ask  me  to  baptize  him. 

Mr.  Massey  :  "Would  you  baptize  any  adult  who  makes 
7io  profession  of  religion  ? 

Mr.  CouLLiNG :  Philip  baptized  Simon  without  that.   - 

Mr.  Massey  :  Simon  certainly  made  a  profession  of 
faith. 

Mr.  CouLLiNG  :  How  was  it  made,  then  ?  Show  it,  if 
you  can.  He  asked,  after  he  was  baptized,  to  have  the 
power  to  confer  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  offered  money,  say- 
ing, "  Give  me  also  this  power,  that  on  whomsoever  I 
lay  hands,  he  may  receive  the  Holy  Ghost." 

Mr.  Massey  pointed  to  the  thirteenth  verse  of  the 
eighth  chapter  of  Acts,  which  reads:  "  Then  Simon  him- 
self believed  also,"  &c. 

Mr.  Coulling:  Simon  Magus  himself  believed  also. 
That  makes  the  matter  a  little  stronsfer,  and  still  a  little 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  89 

more  difficult  for  us  to  decide.  For  here  a  man  may 
believe — may  have  a  measure  of  faith,  and  yet  that  man 
may  be  "in  the  gall  of  bitterness  and  bonds  of  iniquity. 
The  devils  believe  and  tremble."  Would  the  gentleman 
baptize  believing  devils  ? 

Mr.  Massey  :  I  certainly  would  not  baptize  unhelieY- 
ing  devils. 

Mr.  CouLLiNG :  Would  you  baptize  believing  devils  ? 
So  that  the  little  blunder  I  made  strengthens  the  position 
I  assumed.  But  it  may  be  inquired,  What  good  will  it 
do  to  baptize  children  ?  Little,  unconscious  things^  and 
you  baptize  them.  I  have  read — I  have  never  heard  as 
much — I  have  read  a  book  treating  upon  this  subject, 
in  which  the  author  endeavored  to  exhaust  all  his  inge- 
nuity to  make  the  scene  presented  by  the  baptism  of 
children  the  most  ridiculous  and  absurd  that  could  be 
conceived ;  and  suppose  I  admit  that  there  may  be 
some  force  in  the  objection.  Its  force  is  not  against  me 
or  my  cause.  If  I  baptize  a  child,  and  thereby  give 
him  the  sign  and  the  seal  of  the  covenant  of  Christ, 
under  which  we  live — a  covenant  that  confers  salvation, 
through  Jesus  Christy  upon  everybody  that  will  com.ply 
with  the  terms  of  the  covenant,  and  confers  salvation 
also  on  every  child  that  is  incapable  of  complying  with 
its  terms.  Is  there  any  more  difficulty  in  doing  that, 
than  there  was  in  giving  the  seal  and  sign  of  the  very 
same  covenant  to  children  (the  covenant  I  have  proven 
from  the  word  of  God  to  be  the  very  same)  ?  What 
good  did  circumcision  do  the  children  ?  If  there  be  a 
difficulty  about  it,  it  does  not  lie  against  those  who  as- 
sume the  position  upon  the  authority  of  the  word  of 
God,  but  it  lies  against  the  great  Author  of  that  system. 


90  DEBATE    ON    THE 

The  wisdom  of  G-od  is  called  into  question.  His  judg- 
ment upon  that  subject  is  that  which  is  questioned  by 
that  objection,  and  not  the  judgment  and  wisdom  of 
those  who  are  simple  enough,  and  confused  enough,  to 
take  the  plain  word  of  God  as  the  '^  light  to  their  feet 
and  the  lamp  to  their  path."  What  do  children  know 
about  the  covenant?  it  is  sometimes  asked.  Well,  I 
answer  that  I  don't  know  whether  they  know  anything 
about  it  or  not,  and  I  don't  care.  God  entered  into 
covenant  with  them.  And  to  grove  that  he  did  so,  I 
propose  to  call  your  attention  to  several  passages  of 
Scripture.  In  the  twenty-ninth  chapter  of  the  book  of 
Deuteronomy,  and  the  tenth  and  eleventh  verses,  you 
read  this  : 

"  Ye  stand  this  day  all  of  you  before  the  Lord  your 
God  ;  your  captains  of  your  tribes,  your  elders,  and  your 
officers,  with  all  the  men  of  Israel,  your  little  ones,  your 
wives,  and  thy  stranger  that  is  in  thy  camp,  from  the 
hewer  of  thy  wood  unto  the  drawer  of  thy  water." 

"  Little  ones"  entered  into  covenant  with  God.  In 
the  second  chapter  of  the  book  of  Joel,  fifteenth,  six- 
teenth, and  seventeenth  verses,  inclusive,  is  this  : 

*'  Blow  the  trumpet  in  Zion,  sanctify  a  fast,  call  a 
solemn  assembly:  gather  the  people,  sanctify  the  con- 
gregation, assemble  the  elders,  gather  the  children,  and 
those  that  suck  the  breasts  ;  let  the  bridegroom  go  forth 
of  his  chamber,  and  the  bride  out  of  her  closet :  let  the 
priests,  the  ministers  of  the  Lord,  weep  between  the 
porch  and  the  altar,  and  let  them  say,  Spare  thy  people, 
0  Lord,  and  give  not  thy  heritage  to  reproach,  that  the 
heathen  should  rule  over  them ;  wherefore  should  they 
say  among  the  people,  Where  is  their  God  ?" 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  91 

In  G-alatians  v.  3,  a  text  I  had  occasion  to  use  at  an- 
other time  to-day,  the  apostle  says  : 

^'  For  I  testify  again  to  every  man  that  is  circumcised, 
that  he  is  a  debtor  to  do  the  whole  law." 

Here  is  a  child  that  is  circumcised,  but  I  am  not 
responsible  for  that.  In  2  Chronicles  xx.  12,  13,  we 
read  this  : 

"  0  our  Grod,  wilt  thou  not  judge  them  ?  for  we  have 
no  might  against  this  great  company  that  cometh  against 
us  ;  neither  know^  we  what  to  do  :  but  our  eyes  are  upon 
thee.  And  all  Judah  stood  before  the  Lord,  with  their 
little  ones,  their  wives,  and  their  children." 

Now,  in  these  several  passages  of  Scripture,  I  have 
shown  you  that  God  has  called  these  children  to  take 
part  in  the  covenant,  and  become,  in  part  at  least,  re- 
sponsible for  the  very  thing  that  he  calls  upon  adults  to 
be  responsible  for.  And  would  it  not  be  strange  if  it 
were  otherwise  ?  In  Grod's  dealings  with  us,  in  his 
providences,  are  not  our  children  intimately  connected 
with  us  in  every  respect  ?  If  we  refer  to  the  providen- 
tial covenants  that  Grod  makes  with  men,  do  we  not  find 
that  the  children  are  interested  in  every  one  of  them  ? 
What  man  in  this  community,  or  anywhere  else,  that 
pursues  a  course  of  conduct  that  will  give  him  a  high 
moral  position,  does  not  elevate  his  children  in  precisely 
the  same  ratio  in  which  he  himself  is  elevated  ?  "What 
man  who  degrades  himself,  does  not  cast  an  imputation 
and  a  shadow  upon  his  children  ?  If,  in  all  the  dispensa- 
tions of  Providence,  we  find  our  children  blended  with 
us,  is  it  strange  that  God  should  link  our  children  with 
us  in  this  dispensation,  where  more  light  shines  upon 
the  world  than  from  any  other  dispensation — where  the 


92  DEBATE    ON    THE 

gospel  is  more  fully  revealed  than  ever  before?  And 
will  you  have  your  children  participate  in  the  benefits 
of  the  gospel  under  Moses,  which  was  a  dispensation  of 
the  gospel,  administering  blessings  by  figures  and  cere- 
monies and  sacrifices ;  and  here,  with  the  gospel  fuller 
and  freer,  breaking  down  the  middle  wall  of  partition 
between  the  Jew  and  G-entile,  say  it  shall  not  embrace 
the  children,  but  they  are  to  be  excluded  ? 

I  think  the  probability  is,  that  a  great  part  of  the 
errors  of  this  view  lies  in  a  misapprehension  of  what 
baptism  is.  Circumcision  was  a  seal  of  the  righteous- 
ness that  Abraham  had,  being  yet  uncircumcised  :  it 
was  an  expression  to  the  world  of  that  righteousness  ;  it 
was  showing  it  out.  Now  there  must  be  some  way  in 
which  the  line  of  demarkation,  the  distinction,  shall  be 
made  between  the  man  of  the  world  and  those  who 
are  in  covenant  with  G-od.  And  what  must  that  be  ? 
what  is  it  to  be  ?  Jesus  Christ  says  it  shall  be  baptism. 
But  what  is  baptism  ?  Well,  it  is  a  sign,  and  it  is  a 
seal.  Of  what  ?  Of  the  righteousness  that  God  prom- 
ises to  the  world  in  the  greatest  covenant  of  human 
redemption.  Now,  who  are  embraced  in  that  covenant  ? 
Every  adult  man  and  woman  that  believes,  they  say  : 
none  others.  Every  child  before  he  passes  the  line  of 
accountability,  is  justified  freely  through  the  redemp- 
tion that  is  in  Christ :  so  that  when  these  little  children 
die,  we  have  no  doubt  upon  our  minds  as  to  their  des- 
tiny and  condition ;  none  at  all.  That  they  are  fit  for 
the  Church,  or  for  the  kingdom  of  Grod  (and  I  do  not 
care  which  of  these  expressions  you  use) ,  I  think  can  be 
very  easily  proven.  And  I  will  call  your  attention  to  a 
few  passages  of  Scripture  for  that  purpose.     In  Acts  ii. 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  93 

30,  you  have  :  "  The  promise  is  unto  you,  and  to  your 
children."  In  the  eighteenth  chapter  of  Matthew,  begin- 
ning with  the  first  verse,  you  find  the  following : 

"At  the  same  time  came  the  disciples  unto  Jesus, 
saying,  Who  is  the  greatest  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ?" 

''Who  is  the  greatest  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ?" 
Not,  who  shall  be  the  greatest,  when  the  kingdom 
comes,  hut  who  is  now  the  greatest  in  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  ? 

"And  Jesus  called  a  little  child  unto  him,  and  set 
him  in  the  midst  of  them,  and  said,  Yerily,  I  say  unto 
you.  Except  ye  he  converted,  and  become  as  little  chil- 
dren, ye  shall  not  enter  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  Who- 
soever, therefore,  shall  humble  himself  as  this  little  child, 
the  same  is  greatest  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  And 
whoso  shall  receive  one  such  little  child  in  my  name, 
receive th  me." 

In  Mark  ix.  33,  &o.,  we  have  a  similar  passage ; 

"  And  he  came  to  Capernaum :  and  being  in  the 
house,  he  asked  them.  What  was  it  that  ye  disputed 
among  yourselves  by  the  way  ?  But  they  held  their  peace : 
for  by  the  way  they  had  disputed  among  themselves 
who  should  be  the  greatest.  And  he  sat  down,  and 
called  the  twelve,  and  saith  unto  them.  If  any  man  de- 
sire to  be  first,  the  same  shall  be  last  of  all,  and  servant 
of  all.  And  he  took  a  child,  and  set  him  in  the  midst 
of  them  ;  and  when  he  had  taken  him  in  his  arms,  he 
said  unto  them.  Whosoever  shall  receive  one  of  such 
children  in  my  name,  receiveth  me :  and  whosoever 
shall  receive  me,  receiveth  not  me,  but  him  that  sent 
me." 

And  again,  in  the  tenth  chapter,  thirteenth  to  six- 
teenth verses : 


94  DEBATE    ON    THE 

"And  they  brought  young  children  to  him,  that  he 
should  touch  them :  and  his  disciples  rebuked  those 
that  brought  them.  But  when  Jesus  saw  it,  he  was 
much  displeased,  and  said  unto  them,  Suffer  the  little 
children  to  come  unto  me,  and  forbid  them  not ;  for  of 
such  is  the  kingdom  of  Grod.  Verily  I  say  unto  you, 
Whosoever  shall  not  receive  the  kingdom  of  Grod  as  a 
little  child,  he  shall  not  enter  therein.  And  he  took 
them  up  in  his  arms,  put  his  hands  upon  them,  and 
blessed  them." 

And  in  one  place  he  says :  "  Their  angels  do  always 
behold  the  face  of  your  Father  which  is  in  heaven."  Here 
these  little  children  are  brought  to  Christ ;  Christ  re- 
ceives them  ;  and  receives  them  as  what  ?  As  fit  for 
his  kingdom,  regards  them  as  occupying  a  place  in  that 
great  covenant  that  he  made  with  the  worl  i.  Now,  if 
you  ask  me  why  I  baptize  a  child,  I  unhesitatingly  say, 
I  feel  a  great  deal  more  confidence  in  baptizing  a  child 
than  an  adult.  If  I  am  to  baptize  an  adult  upon  his 
profession  of  faith  that  he  does  believe,  or  anything  else, 
it  is  because  that  faith  has  wrought  in  that  man  a  cer- 
tain moral  character ;  because  he  is  entitled,  by  the  ex- 
ercise of  that  faith,  to  that  which  is  represented  by  that 
baptizing — the  purifying  influences  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
And  therefore  I  can  baptize  him.  But  the  little  child 
has  that  already.  The  Saviour  tells  you  he  is  already 
fitted  for  it.  Here  is  the  standard  I  must  measure  to. 
You  measure  me  by  that  standard  when  you  baptize  me, 
and  when  I  do  measure  up  to  it,  you  give  me  the  sign 
and  seal  that  I  have  the  moral  character  required.  And 
yet  you  refuse  it  to  a  little  child !  I  am  sure  that  if 
my  Saviour  will  receive  them  into  his  kingdom  above, 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  95 

he  will  not  be  very  much  displeased  with  me,  if  I  receive 
them  into  his  Church  here,  according  to  his  teachings 
in  the  gospel. 


MR.  MASSEY'S   THIRD  ADDRESS, 

Mr.  Masse Y  :  I  have  but  a  single  word  to  say  in  allu" 
sion  to  the  supposed  personal  reflection  cast  by  me  upon 
the  brother  who  has  just  addressed  you,  in  my  remarks 
that,  had  there  not  been  a  purpose  to  serve,  a  theory  to 
sustain,  which  was  untaught  and  unjustified  by  the  com- 
mission, or  by  the  practice  of  those  who  acted  under  it,  the 
passages  of  Scripture  v/hich  have  been  brought  to  bear 
upon  this  subject  never  would  have  been  introduced 
into  the  controversy,  I  did  not  think  for  a  moment 
that  the  gentleman  would  suppose  that  I  intended  to 
cast  a  reflection  upon  him  personally ;  and  I  take  pleas- 
ure in  saying  to  all  who  understood  me  as  he  seems  to 
have  done,  that  they  did  not  understand  me  as  I  de- 
signed to  be  understood.  I  did  not  mean  it  as  any  per- 
sonal reflection.  In  presenting  our  arguments  extempo- 
raneously, we  may  sometimes,  in  our  manner  of  address^ 
seem  to  be  more  earnest,  and  perhaps  even  more  censo- 
rious, than  those  who  do  not  exactly  admire  our  argu- 
ments, because  they  are  against  them,  may  fancy.  But, 
at  the  same  time,  let  it  be  borne  in  mind  that  all  these 
arguments,  all  that  is  said,  and,  I  trust,  all  that  is 
felt,  is  in  the  kindest  spirit.  I  assure  you  that,  so  far 
as  I  am  concerned,  and,  I  trust,  so  far  as  the  other 
side  is  concerned,  that  it  is  so.  I  can  handle  the  gen- 
tleman's argument ;  I  can  comment  upon  his  course; 
I  can  express  myself  warmly  and  decidedly,  with  re- 


96  DEBATE    ON    THE 

gard  to  my  approbation  or  disapprobation  of  the  mode 
he  may  choose  to  pursue  in  conducting  an  argument 
on  this  subject ;  and  at  the  same  time  deal  with  hira  as 
gently  as  I  would  with  ''  a  sucking  dove^ 

The  brother  seems  to  have  been  greatly  at  a  loss 
to  find  an  exception  to  the  general  rule  that  I  have 
established.  I  had  proven  that  the  commission  given 
by  Jesus  Christ  authorized  the  baptism  of  believers, 
and  of  believers  only.  I  have  used  such  arguments 
as  will  make  this  apparent  to  the  minds  of  this  au- 
dience. I  gave  an  illustration  which  the  gentleman 
will  find  hard  to  set  aside.  I  then  presented,  as  evi- 
dence of  the  correctness  of  my  construction  of  the 
commission,  the  action  of  the  apostles  under  that  com- 
mission, taking  every  act  in  its  regular  consecutive 
order.  I  showed  that  faith  was  required,  in  every  in- 
stance, before  baptism.  Now,  the  brother  asks  if  this  be 
true,  who  is  capable  of  administering  the  ordinance  of 
baptism?  Where  is  the  ditHculty  ?  We  cannot,  it  is 
true,  see  into  the  heart,  and  a  man  may  make  a  false 
profession.  That  is  with  him  and  his  Grod,  and  not  with 
the  administrator  of  the  ordinance.  A  man  comes  to 
these  commissioners  of  election,  and  proposes  to  vote. 
They  ask  him,  '^Are  you  of  legal  age?"  They  require 
him  to  make  oath  that  he  is ;  they  have  thus  exonerated 
themselves  from  all  censure,  having  complied  with  the  re- 
quisitions of  the  law.  If  the  man  swears  falsely,  that  is 
a  matter  for  himself,  and  not  for  the  commissioners.  If 
a  man  makes  a  profession  of  faith  in  Christ  Jesus,  giv- 
ing such  evidence  as  satisfies  me  that  he  is  a  new  crea- 
ture, it  becomes  my  duty  to  baptize  him  ;  but  not  until 
then.     The  gentleman  denied  that  there  was  any  evi- 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  97 

denoe  that  Simon  professed  faith,  and  if  I  had  not  shown 
it  to  him  quite  so  soon,  he  would  have  gone  on  in  an  elo- 
quent strain,  verily  believing  that  there  was  no  profes- 
sion of  faith  made  by  this  Simon :  whom  he  called  Si- 
mon Magus.  The  word  of  Grod  does  not  give  him  that 
title.  I  do  not  know  -^ere  he  gets  the  Magus  from. 
The  Bible  says,  "  Simon  himself  believed  also." 

He  made  some  remarks  about  taking  the  plain,  sim- 
ple word  of  G-od.  That  is  what  I  take.  The  word  of 
Grod  teaches  me  plainly  that  Simon'  believed.  And  he 
was  baptized.  But  the  brother  tells  you  that  a  little 
while  after  he  was  in  the  gall  of  bitterness  and  bonds  of 
iniquity.  That  is  a  perfectly  plain  case,  according  to 
Methodist  doctrine.  Has  poor  Simon  no  right  to  fall 
from  grace  ?  I  venture  to  say  the  brother  has  used  that 
incident  more  than  once,  to  prove  the  doctrine  of  falling 
from  grace.  If  he  has  not,  now  that  I  have  given  him 
the  key,  he  will  be  sure  to  use  it  hereafter.  Some  of 
you  will  hear  him  reasoning  after  this  manner,  one  of 
these  days :  "  The  word  of  G-od  says  he  believed,  and 
that  afterward  he  w^as  in  the  gall  of  bitterness  and 
bonds  of  iniquity ;  and  who  would  dare  question  the 
word  of  Grod  ?"  Now,  I  think  the  case  is  plainly  this : 
Simon  prof  esse  i  to  believe  ;  the  apostles  supposed  him 
to  be  honest  and  sincere ;  they  baptized  him,  and  then 
found,  as  we  often  find,  to  our  sorrow,  that  they  were 
mistaken  with  regard  to  the  genuineness  of  his  profes- 
sion.    Mr.  Clarke  says  upon  this  passage  : 

"  Simon  himself  believed  also.]  He  was  struck  with 
the  doctrines  and  miracles  of  Philip — he  saw  that  these 
were  real ;  he  knew  his  own  to  be  fictitious.     He  be- 

5 


98  *  DEBATE  ON  THE 

lieved,  therefore,  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah,  and  was 
in  consequence  baptized." 

I  am  endeavoring  to  show  you  the  general  law  of  bap- 
tism. And  when  I  show,  as  I  have  done,  that  that  gen- 
eral law  requires  faith  in  all  who  receive  baptism,  if  the 
brother  hopes  to  sustain  the  negative,  he  must  show  a 
plain  exception  to  this  rule.  The  difficulty  he  finds  in 
producing  an  exception  to  it,  may  be  justly  inferred 
from  his  relying  upon  such  a  passage  as  this.  He  illus- 
trates the  old  adage,  "  Drowning  men  will  catch  at 
straws." 

I  will  proceed  with  the  argument  that  I  was  present- 
ing before,  until  I  shall  have  established  all  that  I  have 
said  with  regard  to  the  general  law.  I  will  then  turn 
back  to  the  gentleman. 

In  Acts  xviii.  8,  we  read  : 

"And  Crispus,  the  chief  ruler  of  the  synagogue,  be- 
lieved on  the  Lord,  with  all  his  house  ;  and  many  of  the 
Corinthians  hearing,  believed,  and  were  baptized." 

I  do  not  suppose  the  brother  will  call  for  any  com- 
ment upon  that.  The  order  observed  there,  is  precisely 
the  order  of  the  law  of  baptism. 

Another  evidence  that  I  present  to  you,  of  the  correct- 
ness of  our  view  upon  this  subject,  is  drawn  from  the 
language  of  Paul,  in  his  epistle  to  the  Romans,  sixth 
chapter,  beginning  with  the  first  verse : 

"  What  shall  we  say  then  ?  Shall  we  continue  in  sin, 
that  grace  may  abound?  God  forbid:  how  shall  we, 
that  are  dead  to  sin,  live  any  longer  therein  ?  Know 
ye  not,  that  so  many  of  us  as  were  baptized  into  Jesus 
Christ,  were  baptized  into  his  death  ?  Therefore  we  are 
buried  with  him  by  baptism  into  death:  that  like  as 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  99 

Christ  was  raised  up  from  the  dead  by  the  glory  of  the 
Father,  even  so  we  also  should  walk  in  newness  of  life. 
For  if  we  have  been  planted  together  in  the  likeness  of 
his  death,  we  shall  be  also  in  the  likeness  of  his  resur- 
rection." 

The  argument  that  I  draw  from  this  is,  that  the 
apostle  declares  the  reason  why  we  are  baptized,  to  be, 
that  we  have  died  to  sin.  This  can  only  be  predicated 
of  those  who  exercise  repentance  toward  God^  and  faith 
toivard  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  There  is  a  beautiful 
anaiogy  here.  After  a  death,  we  expect  a  burial ;  after 
a  burial,  we  expect  a  resurrection.  You  do  not  ask, 
when  you  witness  a  burial^  is  that  man  or  that  woman 
dead?  The  very  fact  that  they  are  being  buried^  car- 
ries the  conviction  to  your  mind  that  those  who  bury 
them  suppose  them  to  be  dead.  According  to  the  diffi- 
culty of  our  brother,  who  would  be  capable  of  burying 
a  man  ?  because  cases  have  occurred  where  men,  sup- 
posed to  be  dead,  were  shrouded  and  laid  in  their  coffins, 
who  were  afterward  ascertained  not  to  be  dead.  Yet 
we  never  bury  our  loved  ones  until  we  believe  them  to 
he  dead.  That  is  the  conviction  that  fastens  itself  upon 
every  mind  beholding  such  a  scene  in  a  civilized  land. 
The  apostle  argues  the  same  way :  there  is,  he  says  in 
substance,  something  unnatural  in  the  idea  that  those 
who  have  professed  to  be  dead  to  sin^  and  therefore 
have  been  buried  in  the  likeness  of  the  burial  of  Jesus 
Christ,  and  raised  up  out  of  the  water ^  in  likeness  of  his 
resurrection,  should  continue  longer  in  sin.  They  were 
dead  to  sin,  and  therefore  buried  from  the  world.  They 
are  recognized  as  alive  in  Jesus  Christ,  when  they 
emerge  from  the  watery  grave,  and  are  then   prepared 


100  DEBATE    ON    THE 

to  form  or  unite  with  a  new  organization.  Upon  this 
passage,  Dr.  Clarke  says  : 

"  Every  man  who  believes  the  Christian  religion,  and 
receives  baptism  as  the  proof  that  he  believes  it,  and  has 
taken  up  the  profession  of  it,  is  bound  thereby  to  a  life 
of  righteousness.  To  be  baptized  into  Christy  is  to  re- 
ceive the  doctrine  of  Christ  crucified,  and  to  receive  bap- 
tism as  a  proof  of  the  genuineness  of  that  faith,  and  an 
obligation  to  live  according  to  its  precepts." 

I  now  read  you  from  an  "  Exposition  of  the  Epistle 
to  the  Romans,"  by  Robert  Haldane,  Esq.,  from  the  fifth 
Edinburgh  edition,  page  247  : 

"  In  the  verse  before  us,  the  apostle  proves  that  Chris- 
tians are  dead  to  sin,  because  they  died  with  Christ. 
The  rite  of  baptism  exhibits  Christians  as  dying,  as 
buried,  and  as  risen  with  Christ.  Know  ye  not.  He 
refers  to  what  he  is  now  declaring  as  a  thing  well 
known  to  those  whom  he  addresses.  Baptized  into  Jesus 
Christ.  By  faith  believers  are  made  one  with  Christ : 
they  become  members  of  his  body.  This  oneness  is 
represented  emblematically  by  baptism.  Baptized  into 
his  death.  In  baptism  they  are  also  represented  as  dy- 
ing with  Christ.  This  rite,  then,  proceeds  on  the  fact 
that  they  have  died  with  him  who  bore  their  sins." 

On  the  fourth  verse,  he  says  : 

"  The  death  of  Christ  was  the  means  by  which  sin 
was  destroyed,  and  his  burial  the  proof  of  the  reality  of 
his  death.  Christians  are  therefore  represented  as  buried 
with  him  by  baptism  into  his  death,  in  token  that  they 
really  died  with  him ;  and  if  buried  with  him,  it  is  not 
that  they  shall  remain  in  the  grave,  but  as  Christ  arose 
from  the  dead,  they  should   also  rise.      Their  baptism, 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  101 

therefore,  is  the  figure  of  their  complete  deliverance  from 
the  guilt  of  sin,  signifying  that  G-od  places  to  their 
account  the  death  of  Christ  as  their  own  death ;  it  is 
also  a  figure  of  their  purification  and  resurrection  for  the 
service  of  Grod." 

"What  more  is  needed  to  prove  the  correctness  of  our 
views  of  the  teachings  of  inspiration,  when  such  men 
as  these  are  found  declaring  their  solemn  conviction  that 
this  is  the  teaching  of  the  word  of  God  ?  And,  to  parry 
the  blow^  my  brother  asks  if  I  would  baptize  believing' 
devils  I  "Whenever  he  will  show  me  a  commission  from 
God,  commanding  me  to  preach  the  gospel  to  devils j 
and  to  baptize  those  of  them  who  believe^  I  will  do  it  I 
Show  me  a  commission  from  my  divine  Master,  and  I 
will  try  to  comply  with  its  directions.  If  he  has  any 
such  commission  as  this,  I  must  leave  the  work  in  his 
hands :  I  know  of  no  such  commission  !  I  find  a  com- 
mission  commanding  me  to  preach  the  gospel  to  men, 
to  all  men — '•'•  every  creature^''  and  to  baptize  those  who 
believe  that  gospel. 

Olshausen,  vol.  iii.,  page  594,  says,  upon  the  passage  I 
have-  just  read  : 

"  In  proof  of  The  above  affirmation,  Paul  appeals  to 
the  consciousness  of  his  readers  with  regard  to  their  own 
experience.  They  had  gone  through,  he  says,  in  bap- 
tism, the  death,  nay,  the  burial,  of  Christ  with  him,  as 
also  the  awakening  to  a  new  life.  In  this  passage,  also, 
we  are  by  no  means  to  refer  the  baptism  merely  to  their 
own  resolutions,  or  see  in  it  merely  a  figure,  in  w^hich 
the  one  half  of  the  ancient  baptismal  rite,  the  submer- 
sion, merely  prefigures  the  death  and  the  burial  of  the  old 
man  ;  the  second  half,  the  emersion,  the  resurrection  of 
the  new  man," 


102  DEBATE    ON    THE 

I  will  now  read  from  the  first  volume  of  "  Apostolic 
Epistles,"  by  James  McKnight,  D.  D.,  an  able  Presbyte- 
rian, author  of  the  "  Harmony  of  the  Gospels,"  &c. 
Upon  this  passage  he  says : 

"  In  baptism,  the  rite  of  initiation  into  the  Christian 
Church,  the  baptized  person  is  buried  under  the  water,  as 
one  put  to  death  with  Christ  on  account  of  sin,  in  order  that 
he  may  be  strongly  impressed  with  a  sense  of  the  malig- 
nity of  sin,  and  excited  to  hate  it  as  the  greatest  of  evils  : 
ver.  3.  Moreover,  in  the  same  rite,  the  baptized  person 
being  raised  up  out  of  the  water,  after  being  washed, 
he  is  thereby  taught  that  he  shall  be  raised  from  the 
dead  with  Christ,  by  the  power  of  the  Father,  to  live 
with  him  forever  in  heaven,  provided  he  is  prepared  for 
that  life  by  true  holiness :  ver.  4,  5.  Farther,  by  their 
baptism,  believers  are  laid  under  the  strongest  obliga- 
tions to  holiness,  because  it  represents  their  old  man^ 
their  old,  corrupt  nature,  as  crucified  with  Christ,  to 
teach  them  that  their  body,  which  sin  claimed  as  its 
property,  being  put  to  death,  was  no  longer  to  serve  sin 
as  its  slave." 

I  am  sure  that  no  individual  can  properly  study  this 
passage  without  seeing  that  the  argument  of  the  apostle 
is  predicated  upon  the  fact,  that  those  who  received  the 
ordinance  of  baptism  were  supposed  to  be  dead  to  sin, 
and  alive  to  righteousness  by  the  exercise  of  genuine 
repentence  toward  God,  and  of  a  living  faith  in  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ.  In  1  Corinthians  i.  16,  we  have 
an  account  of  the  baptism  of  Stephanas'  household  : 

"And  I  baptized  also  the  household  of  Stephanas; 
besides,  I  know  not  whether  I  baptized  any  other." 

Who  were  the  household  of  Stephanas  ?     It  may  be 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  103 

claimed  that  it  may  have  had  infants  in  it.  In  the  six- 
teenth chapter  and  fifteenth  verse  of  the  same  epistle,  we 
find  Paul  speaking  of  the  same  family  : 

'^  I  heseech  you,  brethren  (ye  know  the  house  of  Ste- 
phanas, that  it  is  the  first  fruits  of  Achaia,  and  that 
they  have  addicted  themselves  to  the  ministry  of  the 
saints)." 

Showing,  by  the  course  of  conduct  pursued  by  them 
immediately  subsequent  to  their  baptism,  that  they  were 
then  capable  not  only  of  instruction,  of  receiving  it  and 
acting  upon  it,  but  also  of  ministering'  to  the  wants  and 
necessities  of  the  saints  of  God.  Olshausen,  vol.  iv.,  page 
211,  says  upon  this  passage  : 

*'  For  infant  baptism,  nothing  is  to  be  adduced  from 
the  word  olfcog,  as  already  observed  at  Acts  xvi.  14,  15, 
for  the  adult  members  of  the  family,  or  even  the  slaves, 
might  be  exclusively  signified  by  it." 

I  have,  perhaps,  anticipated  an  argument  not  yet  in- 
troduced. Supposing  that  my  arguments  would  be  fol- 
lowed, as  is  the  usual  and  regular  course  of  discussion, 
and  that  the  cases  I  might  present  would  be  examined 
as  I  introduced  them,  I  made  references  to  all  the  cases 
of  baptism  usually  referred  to  upon  this  part  of  the  bap- 
tismal controversy. 

McKnight,  vol  ii.,  page  23,  says : 

*'  Theophylact  says,  '  Stephanas  was  a  person  of  note 
among  the  Corinthians.'  The  family  of  Stephanas 
seems  all  to  have  been  adults  when  they  were  baptized. 
For  they  are  said  (chap.  xvi.  15)  to  have  devoted  them- 
selves to  the  ministry  of  the  saints.'^'' 

In  1  Corinthians  xv.  29,  in  speaking  of  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  dead,  Paul  says  : 


104  DEBATE    ON    THE 

''  Else  what  shall  they  do,  which  are  baptized  for  the 
dead,  if  the  dead  rise  not  at  all?  "Why  are  they  then 
baptized  for  the  dead  ?" 

The  argument  of  the  apostle  in  this  passage  seems  to 
be  this :  "If  there  be  any  doubt  in  your  mind  of  the 
resurrection  of  the  dead,  why  do  you  by  your  baptism 
declare  your  belief  in  the  doctrine  ?  Why  do  you  pro- 
fess, in  this  ordinance,  that  you  are  dead,  and  that  you 
therefore  desire  to  be  buried,  and  to  be  raised  from  the 
dead,  if  you  do  not  believe  in  the  resurrection  from  the 
dead  ?     This  is  evidently  the  doctrine  of  the  text. 

Dr.  McKnight  says  upon  this  passage : 

"  Baptism  being  a  metaphysical  representation  of  the 
death,  and  burial,  and  resurrection,  not  only  of  Christ, 
but  of  all  mankind  (Rom.  vi.  4),  it  was  fitly  made  the 
rite  of  initiation  into  the  Christian  Church ;  and  the 
person  who  received  it,  thereby  publicly  professing  his 
belief  of  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  and  of  the  dead, 
might,  with  the  greatest  propriety,  be  said  to  have  been 
baptized  for  the  dead :  that  is,  for  his  belief  of  the  res- 
urrection of  the  dead." 

In  1  Peter  iii.  21,  we  have  this  passage  : 

"  The  like  figure  whereunto,  even  baptism,  doth  also 
now  save  us  (not  the  putting  away  of  the  filth  of  the 
flesh,  but  the  answer  of  a  good  conscience  toward  Grod),' 
by  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ." 

I  do  not  know  that  I  fully  comprehend  the  idea  which 
my  brother,  who  has  addressed  you,  wished  to  convey 
by  his  comments  upon  being  baptized  and  v/ashing 
away  their  sins.  If  I  were  to  understand  him  simply 
from  his  remarks  upon  that  point,  I  should  understand 
him  to  mean  that  in  baptism  there  was  a  literal  washing 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  105 

away  of  the  sin.  I  do  not  think,  however,  this  is  the 
view  which  he  entertains,  taking  his  remarks  here  in  con- 
nection with  all  he  has  said.  And  hence  I  am  at  a  loss  to 
know  why  he  introduced  this  passage.  Am  I  to  suppose 
the  brother  capable  of  introducing  a  passage  of  Scrip- 
ture to  sustain  a  view  which  he  knows  it  does  not  sustain  ? 
And  yet  I  am  unwilling,  as  that  seems  to  be  a  sore  point, 
to  present  the  only  other  alternative,  and  that  is,  that 
in  his  confusion  of  ideas,  he  presented  this  to  enable 
him  to  get  out  of  a  dilemma.  I  suppose,  that  when  we 
come  to  the  design  of  baptism,  it  will  be  time  enough 
to  meet  him  upon  that  issue.  But  let  none  go  away 
from  here  without  understanding  that  the  doctrine 
which  ought  to  have  been  understood  from  the  passage 
he  quoted  was,  that  baptism  was  a  figurative  washing 
away  of  the  sins,  not  a  literal  washing  away  of  sins ; 
that  by  the  burial  in  the  water  there  was  a  figurative 
burial  of  the  old  man  that  was  dead  ;  and  by  the  rais- 
ing up  out  of  the  water,  there  was  a  figure  of  the  rising 
to  newness  of  life.  But  it  was  not  the  baptism  that 
literally  washed  away  the  sins.  Does  the  gentleman 
intend  to  teach  that  doctrine  ?  Does  he  love  Alexander 
Campbell  and  his  followers  so  well  as  to  feast  them 
upon  so  fine  a  nut  as  this  ? 

The  passage  of  Scripture  which  I  last  introduced, 
presents  something  of  similar  import  to  the  one  intro- 
duced by  the  brother,  upon  which  he  made  the  remarks 
to  which  I  have  just  referred.  Dr.  McKnight,  vol.  v., 
page  476,  says  upon  this  passage : 

"  Thus,  also,  the  water  of  baptism  is  here  called  the 
antitype  of  the  water  of  the  flood,  because  the  flood  was 
a  type  or  emblem  of  baptism  in  the  three  following  par- 


106  DEBATE    ON    THE 

ticulars :  1.  As  by  building  the  ark  and  entering  into 
it,  Noah  showed  a  strong  faith  in  the  promise  of  God, 
concerning  his  preservation  by  the  very  water  which  was 
to  destroy  the  antediluvians  for  their  sins,  so,  by  giving 
ourselves  to  be  buried  in  the  water  of  baptism,  we  show 
a  like  faith  in  Grod's  promise,  that  though  we  die  and 
are  buried,  he  will  save  us  from  death,  the  punishment 
of  sin,  by  raising  us  from  the  dead  at  the  last  day. 
2.  As  the  preserving  of  Noah  alive,  during  the  nine  months 
he  was  in  the  flood,  is  an  emblem  of  the  preservation  of 
the  souls  of  believers,  while  in  the  state  of  the  dead,  so 
the  preserving  believers  alive,  while  buried  in  the  water 
of  baptism,  is  a  prefiguration  of  the  same  event.  3.  As 
the  water  of  the  deluge  destroyed  the  wicked  antedilu- 
vians, but  preserved  Noah,  by  bearing  up  the  ark  in 
which  he  was  shut  up,  till  the  waters  were  assuaged, 
and  he  went  out  of  it  to  live  again  on  the  earth,  so  bap- 
tism may  be  said  to  destroy  the  wicked,  and  to  save  the 
righteous,  as  it  prefigures  both  these  events  :  the  death 
of  the  sinner  it  prefigures  by  the  burying  of  the  baptized 
person  in  the  water  ;  and  the  salvation  of  the  righteous, 
by  raising  the  baptized  person  out  of  the  water,  to  live 
a  new  life." 

I  have  here  the  original  or  first  Pedobaptist  sermon 
on  baptism.  I  very  much  doubt  whether  anything 
original  has  been  taught  by  Pedobaptists  upon  the  sub- 
ject since  the  writing  of  ''  Watson's  Institutes."  He 
gave  the  key  note,  and  all  who  have  followed  him  have 
sung  the  tune  to  his  metre.  On  page  433,  after  ex- 
plaining the  figure,  he  says  : 

"  And  for  this  reason  baptism  is  called  by  St.  Peter, 
without  any  allegory  at  all,  but  in  the  sobriety  of  fact. 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  107 

'  the  antitype'  of  this  transaction :  the  one  exactly  an- 
swering to  the  other,  as  an  external  profession  of  faith 
in  the  same  objects  and  the  same  promises. 

"  But  the  apostle  does  not  rest  in  this  general  repre- 
sentation. He  proceeds  to  express,  in  a  particular  and 
most  forcible  manner,  the  nature  of  Christian  baptism — 
'  not  the  putting  away  of  the  filth  of  the  flesh ;  but  the 
answer  of  a  good  conscience  toward  G-od,  by  the  resur- 
rection of  Jesus  Christ.'  Now,  whether  we  take  the  word 
eTcepG}T7][j,aj  rendered  in  our  translation,  '  answer,'  for  a 
demand  or  requirement,  or  for  the  answer  to  a  question 
or  questions,  or  in  the  sense  of  stipulation — ^the  general 
import  of  the  passage  is  nearly  the  same.  If  the  first, 
then  the  meaning  of  the  apostle  is,  that  baptism  is  not 
the  putting  away  the  filth  of  the  flesh,  not  a  mere  ex- 
ternal ceremony,  but  a  rite  which  demands  or  requires 
something  of  us,  in  order  to  the  attainment  of  a  '  good 

^conscience.'  What  that  is,  we  learn  from  the  words  of 
the  Lord — it  is  faith  in  Christ :  ^  He  that  believeth  and 
is  baptized,  shall  be  saved ;'  which  faith  is  in  the  reli-, 
ance  of  a  penitent  upon  the  atonement  of  the  Saviour, 
who  thus  submits  with  all  gratitude  and  truth  to  the 
terms  of  the  evangelical  covenant.  If  we  take  the  sec- 
ond sense,  we  must  lay  aside  the  notion  of  some  lexicog- 
raphers and  commentators,  who  think  that  there  is  an 

.  allusion  to  the  ancient  practice  of  demanding  of  the  can- 
didate for  baptism,  whether  they  renounced  their  sins 
and  the  service  of  Satan,  with  other  questions  of  the 
same  import ;  for,  ancient  as  these  questions  may  be, 
they  are  probably  not  so  ancient  as  the  time  of  the 
apostles.  We  know,  however,  from  the  instance  of 
Philip  and  the  eunuch,  that  there  was  an  explicit  re- 


108  DEBATE    ON    THE 

quirement  of  faith^  and  as  explicit  an  answer  or  confes- 
sion:  'And  Philip  said,  If  thou  believest  with  all  thy 
heart,  thou  may  est  ;  and  he  answered,  I  believe  that 
Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God.'  Every  administration  of  bap- 
tism, indeed,  implied  this  demand ;  and  baptism,  if  we 
understand  St.  Peter  to  refer  to  this  circumstance,  was 
such  an  '  answer '  to  the  interrogations  of  the  adminis- 
trator, as  expressed  a  true  and  evangelical  faith.  If 
we  take  the  third  rendering  of  '  stipulation^  which  has 
less  to  support  it  critically  than  either  of  the  others,  still, 
as  the  profession  of  faith  was  a  condition  of  baptism, 
that  profession  had  the  full  force  of  a  formal  stipulation, 
since  all  true  faith  in  Christ  requires  an  entire  subjec- 
tion to  him  as  Lord^  as  well  as  Saviour." 

We  find,  that  while  "some  Pedobaptists^''  differ  mate- 
rially from  the  Bible,  "some  Pedobaptists "  are  never- 
theless constrained,  when  giving  an  explanation  of  these 
teachings,  to  talk  very  much  as  the  Bible  talks.  And  I  . 
will  make  this  declaration  just  here.  I  will  guarantee 
to  the  brother  that  he  shall  not  present  one  single  pas- 
sage in  the  New  Testament,  relied  upon  to  sustain  in- 
fant baptism,  which  I  will  not,  by  authority  of  the  first 
order  from  Pedobaptist  ranks,  show  has  been  surren- 
dered. I  noiv  offer  him  this  challenge  :  Let  him  bring 
from  the  New  Testament  one  single  passage  of  Scrip- 
ture that  is  claimed  by  Pedobaptists  to  sustain  infant 
baptism,  and  I  will  shoiv,  by  as  good  authority,  that 
that  passage  has  been  surrendered,  and  all  claim  ari- 
sing from  it  extinguished.  It  is  somewhat  like  the  Mus- 
sulman's hog :  all  agreed  that  there  was  some  part  of 
the  hog  that  was  not  to  be  eaten ;  but  when  they  came 
to  decide  what  part  that  was,  they  could  not  agree.    One 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  109 

said,  '^  This  part  is  not  objected  to ;  I  will  eat  this.  An- 
other said,  "  The  part  you  have  eaten  is  the  part  objected 
to."  Thus  one  eats  one  part,  and  another  a  different 
part ;  and  so,  finally,  the  whole  hog  was  devoured.  And 
so  it  is  here  :  one  Pedobaptist  pins  his  faith  to  one  pas- 
sage. Another  one  says  :  "  I  cannot  find  infant  baptism 
there  ;  I  will  give  that  up,  and  claim  it  here."  Another 
says  :  "  I  cannot  find  infant  baptism  here,  and  will  give 
this  up."  And  thus,  between  them  all,  I  am  prepared  to 
show,  if  the  gentleman  will  give  me  the  opportunity,  if 
he  will  accept  my  challenge,  that  he  cannot  bring  for- 
ward one  passage  that  I  cannot  prove  has  been  given 
up  by  the  ablest  Pedobaptist  writers. 

I  have  noticed  all  the  passages  he  has  referred  to,  and 
will  in  due  time  refer  to  authorities  upon  them.  He 
says  I  have  said  very  little  about  the  dear  children :  I 
promise,  before  I  close  this  discussion,  to  give  him 
*'  mercy  to  babes"  with  a  very  liberal  hand.  I  will  do 
this  in  due  time.  I  have  here  a  "  Cyclopsedia  of  Bib- 
lical Literature,  edited  by  John  Kitto,  D.  D.,  F.  S.  A., 
editor  of,'  The  Pictorial  Bible,'  author  of  '  The  History 
of  Physical  Geography  of  Palestine,'  &c.,  &c."  And 
many  of  you  know  something  of  Kitto's  "  Daily  Bible 
Illustrations."  Upon  page  288  of  his  Cyclopsedia  he 
says  : 

"  To  be  admitted  to  baptism  in  the  apostolic  age, 
there  needed  no  farther  development  of  Christian  knowl- 
edge than  a  professed  belief  that  Jesus  was  the  prom- 
ised Messiah.  To  be  baptized  in  his  name  meant,  to 
receive  baptism  in  the  belief  that  the  power  and  dignity 
contained  in  the  idea  of  a  Messiah  were  realized  in  Jesus. 
The  profession  of  faith  (I  Pet.  iii.  21)  probably  was  such 


110  DEBATE    ON    THE 

as  to  convey  this  idea ;  and  next  also,  the  formula  of 
baptism  in  the  name  of  Christ,  or,  according  to  Matthew 
xxviii.  19,  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Grhost,  when 
the  whole  body  was  immersed  in  water." 
[Tme  expired.] 


MR.  COULLING'S  THIRD  REPLY. 

Mr.  CouLLiNG :  I  very  much  like  the  teachings  of 
these  Pedobaptist  authorities.  I  have  been  brought  up 
with  that  book  in  my  hand,  and  it  is  a  great  book.  I 
subscribe  to  everything  that  Mr.  Watson  said — all  that 
has  been  said  here.  But,  did  it  never  strike  you,  my 
hearers,  that  Mr.  Massey  is  trying  to  prove  that  believers 
only  are  fit  subjects  for  baptism  ?  Yet  not  one  single 
authority  he  has  quoted  has  said  that.  They  have  said 
that  believers  ought  to  be  baptized :  nobody  doubts  that. 
But  he  has  not  brought  one  single  one  to  prove  that 
none  but  believers  should  be  baptized.  All  admit 
that  adult  believers  should  be  baptized.  I  admit  that, 
and  admitted  it  at  first.  .  But  he  continued  to  read  from 
Watson,  and  Kitto,  and  others,  that  believers  should  be 
baptized.  That  is  very  good  Bible  doctrine  :  I  am  glad 
he  has  given  himself  so  much  trouble  to  enlighten  your 
darkness  upon  that  subject :  perhaps,  though,  you  are 
not  quite  so  dark  as  this  formidable  array  upon  this  sub- 
ject might  induce  some  to  believe.  I  suppose  you  have 
always  believed  that  doctrine. 

Now,  the  object  is  to  try  to  find  out  from  the  word  of 
God,  whether  that  commission  does  shut  me  up  like  a 
wall,  like  a  brazen  enclosure,  that  I  cannot  get  out. 
That  is  the  question,  and  we  are  to  find  out  that.     How  ? 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  Ill 

By  reading  continually  from  this  commission,  and  seek- 
ing the  views  of  other  men  ?  What  if  Kitto,  and  "Wat- 
son, and  thousands  of  others  thought  so :  will  that  make 
it  so  ?  There  is  not  a  heresy  that  has  been  introduced 
into  the  world  since  the  days  of  Christ,  but  what,  if  a 
man  would  take  the  trouble  of  my  friend  here,  and  hunt 
up  the  books  and  haul  them  to  this  place,  but  can  be 
proved  :  you  can  prove  anything  you  choose.  I  read  a 
book  the  other  day,  and  I  suppose,  if  there  was  one 
there  were  one  hundred  authors  cited — to  prove  what  ? 
Why,  that  I  did  not  have  an  immortal  soul ;  that  when 
this  body  fell  into  the  grave,  the  spirit  would  vanish 
into  thin  air,  and  there  never  w^ould  be  any  more  of  me, 
as  long  as  time  and  eternity  lasted. 

Mr.  Massey  called  you  here  to  discuss  what  were  the 
scriptural  subjects  of  baptism.  And  he  says  that  every 
passage  of  Scripture  that  I  can  bring  up  here  for  my 
view,  Pedobaptists  have  given  up.  What  does  all  that 
amount  to  ?  That  some  Pedobaptists,  in  looking  at  the 
Bible,  have  come  to  a  passage  and  said  :  "  I  do  not  think 
this  is  very  plain  here  ;  but  I  think  it  is  self- evidently 
taught  in  some  other  place,  and  I  will  give  this  up."  If 
I  choose,  I  can  bring  forward  authors  who  give  up  a 
great  many  points  that  the  gentleman  does  not  choose 
to  give  up,  and  which  he  will  not  give  up.  And  the 
fact  that  all  these  passages  have  been  surrendered,  be- 
cause one  man  surrendered  one,  and  another  another,  if 
it  have  any  force  upon  his  mind,  will  not  certainly  have 
any  force  on  your  mind  as  an  argument :  not  a  particle. 

Now,  I  think  I  have  noticed  the  points  that  affect  the 
subject,  as  far  as  he  has  brought  it  forward,  in  these 
few  general  remarks,  and  I  shall  proceed  with  my  argu- 


112 


ment.  Again,  I  wish  to  call  your  attention  to  the  force 
of  the  argument.  The  question  is,  whether  or  not  in- 
fants ought  to  be  baptized  ?  I  started  with  this  propo- 
sition :  that  when  the  Church  of  God  was  organized  by 
express  authority,  the  rite  that  has  been  substituted  by 
baptism  was  administered  to  children,  and  a  rite,  too, 
that  had  spiritually  the  very  same  import  that  baptism 
has.  That,  I  think,  is  almost  a  self-evident  proposition, 
lying  upon  the  very  surface  of  'the  Scriptures.  Nobody 
who  reads  the  Bible  can  doubt  that.  Children  were  to 
be  circumcised,  and  that  circumcision  was  the  seal  of 
the  righteousness  of  faith ;  and  baptism  has  taken  the 
place,  under  the  new  dispensation,  of  that  circumcision. 
Now  Jesus  Christ  nowhere  said  that  children  should  not 
be  baptized ;  that  is  nowhere  to  be  found  in  the  book. 
If  it  could  be,  that  would  settle  the  matter.  Nowhere 
is  it  said  that  we  ought  not  to  baptize  children.  I  have 
shown  you  clearly,  that  this  Church  under  which  we 
live  was  the  very  Church  established  with  Abraham ;  and 
the  gospel  of  Peter  and  Paul  was  the  very  sa-me  gospel 
before  preached  to  Abraham.  I  have  taken  up  the  ob- 
jections urged  to  the  baptism  of  infants,  as,  for  instance, 
that  they  did  not  understand  it,  did  not  comprehend  it, 
and  it  did  not  do  them  any  good.  I  have  shown  you 
that  that  very  objection  laid  with  as  much  force  against 
circumcision,  which,  there  is  no  doubt,  was  administered 
to  children  ;  and  consequently  the  objection  lies  not 
against  me,  but  against  him  who  instituted  the  rite. 
And  I  think  I  have  established  that  by  the  Scripture. 
It  is  true  I  brought  forward  Eusebius's  "  Ecclesiastical 
History." 

Mr.  Massey  :  The  brother  speaks  very  frequently  of 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  113 

scriptural  testimony,  as  if  he  wishes  to  make  you  be- 
lieve that  I  had  not  proven  my  position  by  the  word  of 
God  ;  while  he  knows  that  from  the  beginning  1  have 
been  tracing  the  Scripture  history  of  this  subject. 

Mr.  CouLLiNG :  No  doubt  he  did  that,  and  then  read 
a  comment,  and  relied  upon  that  instead  of  the  passage. 

Mr.  Massey  :  No,  sir,  I  oifer  the  testimony  of  others, 
to  show  that  my  views  are  correct. 

Mr.  CouLLiNG  :  It  may  be  so  about  an  obscure  pas- 
sage, that  he  took  the  commentary  to  sustain  his  view. 
I  have  not  read  any  commentary  upon  these  passages  ; 
they  were  all  plain  and  distinct,  and  you  could  not  mis- 
understand them. 

I  now  come  to  one  other  point.  Let  us  suppose  that 
one  of  the  apostles  had  undertaken  to  exclude  children 
from  the  Church.  To  appreciate  the  force  of  that  view 
of  the  subject,  let  me  ask  you  to  consider,  for  one  mo- 
ment, that  every  Jew  who  heard  the  apostles  preach, 
had  been  nurtured  and  educated  in  a  Church  that  em- 
braced their  children  with  them,  and  they  were  regarded 
as  members  of  the  Church  with  themselves — in  the 
same  covenant.  Will  anybody  deny  that?  Now,  let 
me  refer  you  to  one  passage  of  Scripture,  to  show  you 
how  sensitive  the  Jewish  mind  was  upon  that  subject. 
I  will  read  to  you  from  the  twenty-first  chapter  of  Acts, 
beginning  with  the  eighteenth  verse : 

"  And  the  day  following  Paul  went  in  with  us  unto 
James ;  and  all  the  elders  were  present.  And  when  he 
had  saluted  them,  he  declared  particularly  what  things 
Grod  had  wrought  among  the  G-entiles  by  his  ministry. 
And  when  they  heard  it,  they  glorified  the  Lord,  and 
said  unto  him,  Thou  seest,  brother,  how  many  thousands 


114  DEBATE    ON    THE 

of  Jews  there  are  which  believe  ;  and  they  are  all  zeal- 
ous of  the  law  :  and  they  are  informed  of  thee,  that  thou 
teachest  all  the  Jews  which  are  among  the  G-entiles  to 
forsake  Moses,  saying.  That  they  ought  not  to  circum- 
cise their  children,  neither  to  walk  after  the  cus- 
toms ?  What  is  it,  therefore  ?  the  multitude  must 
needs  come  together ;  for  they  will  hear  that  thou  art 
come.  Do  therefore  this  that  we  say  to  thee :  We 
have  four  men  which  have  a  vow  on  them  ;  them  take, 
and  purify  thyself  with  them,  and  be  at  charges  with 
them,  that  they  may  shave  their  heads :  and  all  may 
know  that  those  things  whereof  they  were  informed 
concerning  thee,  are  nothing  :  but  that  thou  thyself  also 
walkest  orderly,  and  keepest  the  law." 

Here  is  the  argument :  it  is  reported  that  Paul  will 
not  let  the  children  go  along  with  the  parents.  Well, 
that  is  an  outrage  ;  there  are  a  great  many  Jews  who 
believe,  and  they  are  offended  with  thee.  Now,  Paul, 
take  this  course  prescribed,  and  let  the  people  know  this 
is  not  so.  Suppose  he  had  refused  to  baptize  the  chil- 
dren, would  they  not  have  made  some  fuss  ?  Could 
you  have  broken  in  upon  the  habits  of  a  nation  that  had 
lived  under  this  custom  I  do  not  know  how  long,  and 
all  at  once  a  new  dispensation  rolling  in,  and  a  cherished 
and  loved  custom  be  at  once  abrogated,  and  not  a  single 
note  of  dissent  come  down  through  all  the  ages  to  tell 
us  that  such  a  thing  had  been  done?  Can  anybody 
believe  that  ?  Does  anybody  believe  that  ?  Is  it  not 
the  most  marvellous  thing  that  has  ever  happened  in  the 
history  of  our  world,  where  all  the  habits  of  a  nation 
have  been  abruptly,  suddenly,  ruthlessly,  broken  down, 
and  you  hear  no  controversy  about  it  ?      Would  men 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  115 

who  were  Jews,  the  sons  of  a  Jew,  who  could  trace  their 
genealogy  away  back  to  remote  ages,  to  which  the  mem- 
ory of  man  runneth  not,  quietly  and  submissively  yield, 
and  you  hear  nothing  in  the  world  of  controversy  among 
friends  or  enemies  ?  I  affirm,  that  if  there  were  no 
other  argument  in  favor  of  infant  baptism,  this  would 
be  as  hard  to  answer  as  most  things  that  you  hear. 

And,  again,  who  were  these  apostles?  who  were  the 
very  men  whom  Christ  selected  and  sent  out  ?  Jews  : 
with  all  the  prejudices  of  Jews,  fond  of  their  nation, 
fond  of  their  customs.  And  that  they  were  true  men 
and  good,  that  they  had  hearts,  and  their  hearts  in  the 
right  place,  and  that  they  had  feelings,  and  feelings, 
too,  that  elevated  them  above  the  ordinary  vulgar  walks 
of  human  life,  read  their  character,  and  see  it  and  know 
it.  "Who  were  these  men  ?  Jews,  who  had  taken  their 
children  in  their  arms,  and  carried  them  to  the  temple, 
and  had  there  the  sign  and  seal  of  the  covenant,  made 
with  their  father  Abraham,  placed  upon  them.  Bring 
these  men  now  into  the  Christian  Church,  and  tell 
them  to  leave  their  children  behind,  and  yet  they  say 
nothing  about  it!  Look  at  their  teachings,  and  con- 
trast two  or  three  passages,  and  if  you  choose,  take  pen- 
cil and  paper,  and  note  them,  and  when  you  go  home, 
read  them  over  at  your  leisure.     Deuteronomy  iv.  9  : 

"  Only  take  heed  to  thyself,  and  keep  thy  soul  dili- 
gently, lest  thou  forget  the  things  which  thine  eyes  have 
seen,  and  lest  they  depart  from  thy  heart  all  the  days  of 
thy  life ;  but  teach  them  thy  sons,  and  thy  sons'  sons." 

Yery  good  wholesome  doctrine  is  this  for  Christian 
parents  to  tell  their  children  what  they  have  heard,  and 
let  it  sink  deep  into  their  hearts.    And  again,  Ephesians, 


116  DEBATE    ON    THE 

vi.  1,  4 :  you  would  be  at  a  loss  to  tell  under  which  dis- 
pensation you  were,  in  reading  first  the  one  and  then 
the  other : 

''  Children,  obey  your  parents  in  the  Lord  :  for  this  is 
right.  Honor  thy  father  and  mother  (which  is  the  first 
commandment  with  promise)." 

When  was  that  commandment  given?  Yonder  at 
Mount  Sinai : 

"  That  it  may  be  well  with  thee,  and  thou  may  est 
live  long  on  the  earth.  And  ye  fathers,  provoke  not 
your  children  to  wrath :  but  bring  them  up  in  the  nur- 
ture and  admonition  of  the  Lord." 

Then  compare  that  with  Colossians  iii.  19,  20 : 

"  Children,  obey  your  parents  in  all  things  :  for  this 
is  well-pleasing  unto  the  Lord.  Fathers,  provoke  not 
your  children  to  anger,  lest  they  be  discouraged." 

My  object  in  quoting  these  passages  is  just  this :  to 
show  you  that,  under  the  Mosaic  or  Jewish  dispensation, 
as  under  the  Christian  dispensation,  the  very  same 
moral  duties  rested  upon  parents  and  children.  Under 
the  one  dispensation  the  sign  and  seal  of  the  covenant — 
circumcision — was  given.  Now,  1  ask,  in  the  name  of 
common  sense,  when  everything  else  is  in  accordance, 
why  not  give  the  children  the  same  sign  ?  It  is  the 
same  covenant,  under  a  different  dispensation,  just  as 
this  Old  Dominion  is  the  same  State  under  its  new  con- 
stitution, as  it  was  before  its  constitution  was  ever 
altered,  though  that  constitution  has  been  altered  sev- 
eral times.  This  is  the  same  covenant,  identical  with 
the  other  :   the  Bible  says  so. 

Now  I  will  go  on  and  notice  what  the  apostles  said 
when  they  went  out  to  preach.     My  good  brother  has 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  117 

been  calling  your  attention  to  the  comments  upon  some 
of  these  passages :  I  will  call  your  attention  to  these 
passages  themselves.  I  will  refer  you  first  to  Acts  xvi. 
14,  15 :  the  same  to  which  you  have  been  referred  sev- 
eral times  already,  and  to  which  I  have  no  doubt  you 
will  be  referred  again.  I  suppose  this  may  be  one  of 
the  passages  that  some  Pedobaptists  have  given  up.  I 
do  not  care  how  many  have  given  it  up.  "What  does  the 
passage  teach  ? — 

"And  a  certain  woman  named  Lydia,  a  seller  of  pur- 
ple, of  the  city  of  Thyatira,  which  worshipped  G-od, 
heard  us :  whose  heart  the  Lord  opened,  that  she  at- 
tended unto  the  things  which  were  spoken  of  Paul.  And 
when  she  was  baptized,  and  her  household,  she  besought 
us,  saying,  If  ye  have  judged  me  to  be  faithful  to  the 
Lord,  come  into  my  house,  and  abide  there.  And  she 
constrained  us." 

Now,  my  brother  has  laid  it  down  as  a  subject  of  de- 
bate at  this  time,  that  none  but  believers  were  to  be 
baptized.  Lydia  is  the  only  individual  said  to  have 
believed.  Well,  we  have  no  right  to  assume  that  any- 
body else  believed  ;  he  is  to  take  the  word  as  it  is.  L}'- 
dia  believed,  and  on  her  faith  her  household  were  bap- 
tized. If  they  were  adults,  they  were  baptized  without 
faith.  For  if  he  assumes  that  they  did  believe,  I  have 
an  equal  right  to  assume  that  they  were  children,  have 
I  not  ?  And  with  a  great  deal  more  certainty  ;  for  the 
very  first  translation  that  was  ever  made,  was  made 
about  the  last  of  the  first  century,  or  about  the  begin- 
ning of  the  second  century,  about  forty-five  or  forty-six 
years  after  the  resurrection  of  the  Saviour,  and  almost 
coeval  with  St.  John.     The   apostles  had   hardly  died 


118  DEBATE    ON    THE 

then.  That  Peshito  Syriac  edition — so  called  because 
it  was  so  accarate — that  edition  an  intimate  friend  of 
mine,  of  the  town  of  Norfolk,  had  in  his  hand.  I  asked 
him  to  turn  over  and  read  that  passage  about  Lydia ; 
he  did  so.  What  was  it?  "Lydia  and  the  children 
of  her  household  were  baptized."  That  is  the  informa- 
tion given  me  by  him,  and  not  only  by  him,  but  by  half 
a  dozen  other  scholars  who  have  read  the  Syriac  Scrip- 
tures. "  Lydia  and  the  children  of  her  household  were 
baptized."  Olfcog  was  the  word  used  there,  to  embrace 
the  persons  baptized.  OUla  is  the  word  used  for  all  per- 
sons, servants  and  all ;  olfcog  is  the  word  used  in  the  case 
of  children.  In  the  case  of  the  jailor,  the  otKia  heard 
the  preaching,  and  then  the  jailor  and  all  his  were 
baptized.  "Ah!"  says  one — and  I  think  Dr.  Fuller 
says  that — "  those  that  were  baptized  must  have  been 
believers,  because  they  rejoiced  with  the  jailor."  I  was 
surprised  to  see  that  in  Dr.  Fuller,  for,  turning  over  to 
the  Greek  Testament,  I  found  that  the  word  rendered 
rejoice  is  in  the  singular  number,  and  shows  that  the 
jailor  rejoiced,  not  the  others. 

So  now,  you  see,  that  when  the  blessed  Redeemer 
comes  into  the  world,  he  recognizes  the  Church  as  al- 
ready in  existence ;  he  sends  out  his  apostles  to  preach 
the  gospel :  they  go  forth  and  preach  it,  and  when  they 
baptize  a  believer,  they  baptize  his  ottcog — his  household. 
It  does  not  say  a  word  about  their  believing  :  they  bap- 
tized the  children,  who  could  not  believe  ;  and  if  they 
were  not  baptized,  then  men  and  women  who  did  not 
believe,  according  to  these  passages,  were  baptized,  and 
Mr.  Massey's  proposition  falls  through,  according  to  his 
own  admission,  if  that  be  the  position  he  assumes. 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  119 

I  wish  now,  just  at  this  point,  to  call  your  attention 
to  some  other  things.  I  hold  here  in  my  hand — "  Prim- 
itive Christianity ;  or,  the  Religion  of  the  Ancient  Chris- 
tians in  the  Ages  of  the  G-ospel.  In  three  parts.  By 
William  Cave,  D.  D.  (Grreek  and  Latin  motto.)  The  fifth 
edition.  London :  Printed  for  R.  Chiswell,  at  the  Rose 
and  Crown,  St.  Paul's  Churchyard.  MDCXCYIIL" 
This  is  a  pretty  old  book.  I  wish  to  read  you  a  passage 
or  two  from  the  202d  page  of  that  book  : 

"  From  the  persons  ministtring  we  proceed  to  the 
persons  upon  whom  it  was  conferred,  and  they  were  of 
two  sorts,  infants  and  adult  persons.  How  far  the  bap- 
tizing of  infants  is  included  in  our  Saviour'' s  institution, 
is  not  my  work  to  dispute ;  but  certainly,  if  in  contro- 
verted cases  the  constant  practice  of  the  Church,  and 
those  who  immediately  succeeded  the  apostles,  be  (as 
no  man  can  deny  it  is)  the  best  interpreter  of  the  laws 
of  Christ,  the  dispute,  one  would  think,  should  be  at  an 
end  :  for  that  it  always  was  the  custom  to  receive  the 
children  of  Christian  parents  into  the  Church  by  bap- 
tism, we  have  sufficient  evidence,  for  the  greatest  part 
of  the  most  early  writers,  Ireneus,  Tertullian,  Origen, 
Cyprian,  &c.,  whose  testimonies  I  do  not  produce,  be- 
cause I  find  them  collected  by  others,  and  the  argument 
thence  so  forcible  and  conclusive,  that  the  most  zealous 
opposers  of  infant  baptism  know  not  how  to  evade  it ; 
the  testimonies  being  so  clear,  and  not  the  least  shadow, 
that  I  know  of,  in  those  times,  of  anything  to  make 
against  it.  There  was,  indeed,  in  Cyprian's  time,  a 
controversy  about  the  baptizing  of  infants,  not  ivhether 
they  ought  to  be  baptized  (for  of  that  there  was  no 
doubt),  but  concerning  the  time  when  it  was  to  be  ad- 


120  DEBATE    ON    THE 

ministered,  whether  on  the  second  or  thirds  or  whether, 
as  circumcision  of  old,  to  be  deferred  till  the  eig'hlh  day. 
For  the  determining  of  which,  Cyprian^  sitting  in  coun- 
cil with  sixt3^-six  bishops,  writes  a  synodical  epistle  to 
Fidus,  to  let  him  know  that  it  was  not  necessary  to  be 
deferred  so  long,  and  that  it  was  their  universal  judg- 
ment and  resolution,  that  the  mercy  and  grace  of  God 
was  not  to  be  denied  to  any,  though  as  soon  as  he  was 
boi'n:  concluding  that  it  was  the  sentence  of  the  coun- 
cil, that  none  could  be  fgrbidden  baptism  and  the  grace 
of  God  :  which,  as  it  was  to  be  observed  and  retained 
toward  all  men,  so  much  more  toward  infants  and  new- 
born children.  And  that  this  sentence  of  theirs  was  no 
novel  doctrine,  S.  Augustine  assures  us,  where  speaking 
concerning  this  synodical  determination,  he  tells  us, 
that  in  this  Cyprian  did  not  make  any  new  decree,  but 
kept  the  faith  of  the  Church  most  firm  and  true. 

"  I  shall  only  take  notice  of  one  place  more  out  of 
Cyprian,  which  methinks  evidently  makes  for  this  pur- 
pose, where  describing  the  great  wickedness  and  miser- 
able condition  of  the  lapsed,  such  as,  to  avoid  persecu- 
tion, had  done  sacrifice  to  the  idols,  he  urges  this  as  one 
of  the  last  and  highest  aggravations,  that  by  their  apos- 
tasie  their  infants  and  children  were  exposed  to  ruine, 
and  had  lost  that  which  they  had  obtained  at  their  first 
coming  into  the  worldP 

Now,  that  is  the  testimony  of  the  history  of  the 
Church.  Another  testimony  I  shall  adduce,  just  at 
this  place,  is  this :  I  hold  in  my  hand  Justin  Martyr's 
"Apology,"  and  on  the  thirty-fifth  page  of  that  you 
find  this : 

"And  for  good  reason;  because  the  inward  desires 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  121 

as  well  as  the  outward  action,  are  equally  manifest  to 
God.  And  I  can  produce  abundance  of  both  sexes,  who 
have  from  'their  childhood,  been  discipled  with  Christ, 
and  lived  in  a  constant  course  of  spotless  virginity  to 
sixty  and  seventy  years  of  age ;  and  I  cannot  but  glory 
in  being  able  to  produce  so  many  instances  of  Christian 
purity  out  of  every  nation." 

He  is  here  giving  an  apology  to  his  sovereign  for  his 
Christianity,  and  says  he  can  produce  numberless  in- 
stances from  every  nation,  where,  from  their  childhood, 
persons  have  been  disciples  of  Grod,  and  lived  to  old  age 
according  to  his  requirements.  In  Taylor's  ^'Apostolic 
Baptism,"  which  I  hold  in  my  hand,  and  which  I  had 
occasion  before  to  speak  of,  and  also  of  the  high  character 
and  extensive  erudition  of  Mr.  Taylor — he  has  given  him- 
self the  trouble,  in  looking  for  arguments  upon  this 
question,  to  collect  and  collate  a  great  many  facts.  On 
the  lOSth  page,  he  tells  you  lihat  the  word  neophytus — 
newly-planted,  was  applied  to  children  who  v/ere  bap- 
tized. You  find  it  corroborated  in  a  great  many  Church 
histories,  that  children,  and  persons  who  were  baptized, 
received  names  drawn  sometimes  from  one  view  of  bap- 
tism, and  sometimes  from  another.  Now,  in  the  cata- 
combs at  Rome,  you  find  epitaphs  left  upon  the  grave- 
stones of  a  great  many  who  have  died.  Let  me  read  to 
you  some  of  them  that  Mr.  Taylor  has  collected : 

''  Rufillo,  newly-baptized^  who  lived  two  years  and 
forty  days.  Quintillian,  the  father,  places  this  to  the 
memory  of  his  son,  who  sleeps  in  the  peace  of  Christ. 

"To  Domitius,  an  innocent,  newly  baptized,  w^ho  lived 
three  years  and  thirty  days. 

^'Valerius  Decentius,  the  father,  places  this  to  his  son) 

6 


122  DEBATE    ON    THE 

newly  baptized,  who  lived  three  years,  ten  months,  and 
fifteen  days. 

^'  To  Pisentus,  an  innocent  soul,  who  lived  one  year, 
eight  months,  and  thirteen  days.  Newly  baptized  ; 
buried  on  the  ides  of  September,  in  peace. 

"  To  Jovius,  son  of  Callistus,  who  lived  six  years,  ten 
months,  and  nineteen  days.  Newly  baptized  ;  he  died 
in  peace. 

"  To  Leoni,  newly  baptized,  who  lived  six  years, 
eight  months,  and  eleven  days.  He  reposed  the  sixth 
of  the  nones  of  July,  Phillippus  and  Sallia  being  con- 
suls. 

"  To  Aristus,  who  lived  eight  months ;  newly  bap- 
tized ;  he  went  off  the  first  of  the  nones  of  June  : 
Timasius  and  Promoter  as  being  consuls." 

Now  let  me,  if  I  can  in  the  few  moments  left  me, 
propound  this  question  in  debate.  The  issue  between 
my  friend  and  myself  is  this :  he  affirms  that  none  but 
believers  have  a  right  to  baptism  :  I  affirm  that  children 
have  a  right  to  it,  a  scriptural  right  to  it.  To  prove 
that,  I  have  tried  to  show  you,  and  I  think  I  have  done 
it,  that  the  covenant  of  grace,  the  gospel,  the  Church 
under  which  we  live,  was  established  with  Abraham, 
and  has  been  continually  in  force  from  that  day  to  the 
present.  Now,  if  you  will  turn  to  the  Old  Testament 
Scriptures,  and  read  the  first  twelve  chapters  of  G-ene- 
sis,  what  will  you  find  ?  There  was  no  Church  on  earth 
then.  Each  individual  who  served  G-od  was  individually 
responsible  ;  the  father  was  the  priest  of  the  family 
(Enoch  walked  with  G-od,  a  single  light  shining  in  dark- 
ness), until  G-od  called  Abraham  and  his  seed  and  estab- 
lished a  Church,  and  that  Church  has  been  in  the  world 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  123 

ever  since.  It  is  true  that  different  dispensations  have 
come  over  that  Church :  different  dispensations  prior  to 
the  coming  of  Christ,  and  dispensations  quite  as  differ- 
ent since  the  coming  of  Christ.  What  comparison  is 
there  between  the  Church  when  the  Pentecostal  influ- 
ences of  the  Holy  G-host  was  poured  out  without  meas- 
ure, and  the  Church  in  the  dark  ages,  when  almost 
every  ray  of  the  gospel  light  was  shut  out  of  the  hearts 
of  men?  Were  not  tliose  different  dispensations,  that 
under  Moses,  under  our  Redeemer,  that  of  John  the 
Baptist,  when  he  came  to  prepare  the  way,  and  that 
dispensation  that  ushered  in  the  pouring  out  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  on  the  day  of  Pentecost?  And  there  will  be  dif- 
ferent dispensations  until  the  end  of  time.  Are  we  not 
all  praying  for  the  time  to  come,  when  ^'  every  one  shall 
know  the  Lord,  from  the  least  to  the  greatest  ?"  Will 
not  that  be  a  different  dispensation  from  the  one  under 
which  we  live  ?  Yet  under  all  those  different  dispensa- 
tions there  has  been  an  identity  preserved  through  them 
ail.  When  we  speak  of  it,  we  speak  of  it  as  the  Church, 
as  the  G-ospel.  When  St.  Paul  speaks  of  it,  he  tells  the 
Jews  and  the  Gentiles,  in  very  emphatic  language,  that 
it  is  the  same  Church.  He  says  to  the  Gentiles :  '*  If 
you,  contrary  to  nature,  are  grafted  into  a  good  tree,  do 
not  boast :  if  those  which  have  been  broken  off  shall  re- 
pent, how  much  more  shall  they  be  grafted  into  their 
own  olive-tree  7^''  Showing  that  these  "Christians  at 
Rome,  called  to  be  saints,"  this  very  Church  established 
at  Rome,  was  the  very  Church  that  God  established  with 
Abraham  and  his  seed,  was  the  Church  of  the  Jews — 
their  own  olive-tree.  Then,  if  you  will  look,  you  will 
find  that  the  apostles,  in  the  cases  of  Lydia,  and  Stepha- 


124 


DEBATE    ON    THE 


nas,  and  the  jailor,  baptized  households.  My  good 
brother  says,  if  you  will  refer  to  the  sixteenth  chapter, 
you  will  find  that  the  household  of  Stephanas  could  not 
have  been  infants,  because  they  ministered  to  the 
saints — they  served  the  saints.  The  apostle  says  they 
were  the  first  fruits  of  Achaia.  Now,  what  time 
elapsed  between  the  preaching  of  Paul  in  Achaia, 
and  the  time  this  was  written?  Probably  thirty  or 
forty  years ;  at  least  fifteen  or  twenty  years,  for  his 
preaching  in  Achaia  was  soon  after  his  convei'sion,  and 
his  epistle  to  the  Corinthians  was  written  twenty  or 
thirty  years  after  that.  And  he  might  have  baptized 
the  household  of  Stephanas  ;  and  these  very  children, 
whom  he  had  taken  in  his  arms  and  baptized,  being 
brought  up  in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord, 
as  Timothy  had  been,  would  afterwards  minister  to  the 
saints.  For  you  generally  find  men  who  pay  attention 
to  the  education  of  their  children,  bring^  them  to  the 
altar  of  Grod  and  dedicate  them  to  him  in  holy  baptism 
in  youth — carry  out  the  solemn  purposes  they  then  form 
— you  generally  find  them  bringing  up  very  good  chil- 
dren. Now  and  then  you  will  find  men  and  women 
who  neglect  their  children,  and  after  they  have  them 
baptized,  let  them  run  riot  and  wild.  But  when  a  man 
dedicates  his  chihlren  in  baptism  to  God,  invokes  his 
benediction  upon  them,  and  follows  that  up  properly, 
he  will  have  a  household  of  faith,  and  they  will  be  con- 
secrated to  God. 

[Close  of  the  First  Daijs  Discussion.] 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM. 


125 


Second  Day's  Discussion. 

Wednesday,  July  11,  1860. 

MR.  MASSEY'S  FOURTH  ADDRESS. 

Mr.  Massey: — Messrs.  Moderators,  Ladies,  and  Gen- 
tlemen :  "While  I  purpose  reserving  my  reply  to  the  ar- 
guments of  my  opponent,  drawn  from  the  Old  Testa- 
ment Scriptures,  until  he  shall  have  concluded  them,  I 
purpose,  now,  to  notice  his  remarks  upon  several  pas- 
sages of  the  New  Testament,  hefore  proceeding  with  the 
argument  which  I  was  presenting  yesterday.  I  must 
say,  in  the  beginning,  that  there  was  one  remark  made 
by  the  gentleman,  to  which  I  find  myself  at  a  loss  to 
reply,  without  seeming  acrimoniousness.  (It  will  only, 
however,  I  trust,  be  seeming.)  That  is,  that  while  / 
called  your  attention  to  the  comments,  he  would  call 
your  attention  to  the  passages  of  Scripture  themselves. 
Did  the  gentleman  mean,  by  that  remark,  to  convey  to 
this  audience  the  idea  that  /  had  not  presented  you  with 
ivhat  the  Scriptures  say  upon  this  subject  ?  I  can  but 
suppose  that  this  was  his  intention  !  Yet  I  can  scarcely 
suppose  that  he  persuaded  himself  that  he  could  con- 
vince this  intelligent  audience  that  such  was  the  fact ! 
He  KNOWS,  as  every  observing  hearer  here  knows,  that  I 
took  the  history  of  baptism  from  its  introduction,  as 
presented  in  the  word  of  God,  and  followed  it  down, 
presenting  every  case  of  baptism  recorded  in  the  divine 
volume  ;  that  I  read  what  the  ivord  of  God  said  with 
regard  to  each  one  of  these  cases  ;  that  I  presented  my 
views  upon  each  one  of  them  in  their  regular  order  ; 
and  that  I  then  brought  up  able   authority  from  the 


126  DEBATE    ON    THE 

Pedobaptist  ranks,  to  show  that  my  views  were  correct^ 
according  to  their  interpretation  of  the  same  texts  of 
Scripture.  These  are  facts  that  must  be  known  to  him 
as  well  as  to  you^  and  I  feel  persuaded  that  if  there  be 
any  expectation  that  by  reiterating  such  remarks  as 
these,  he  can  make  the  impression  upon  the  minds  of 
this  audience  that  I  have  not  presented  you  with  suffi- 
cient Scriptural  authority  upon  this  subject,  he  will  fail, 
and  I  think  I  shall  be  able  to  show  you,  before  the  close 
of  this  argument,  that  the  whole  of  his  yesterday's 
labor  was  lost.  His  whole  argument  has  been  predicated 
upon  a  mistaken  theory. 

Another  thing  to  which  I  wish  to  make  allusion,  is 
the  argument  he  presents  from  the  commission,  or  the 
deduction  which  he  seems  to  have  drawn  from  my  expo- 
sition of  it.  Faith  is  prerequisite  to  baptism ;  infants 
cannot  exercise  faith,  says  he,  and  therefore  they  ought 
not  to  be  baptized. 

Mr.  CouLLiNG  :  Did  you  understand  me  to  present 
that  argument  ? 

Mr.  Massey  :  Certainly ;  as  a  deduction  from  my 
views  upon  the  subject — from  my  argument  upon  the 
commission. 

Mr.  CouLLiNG  :   I  took  it  up  as  your  argument. 

Mr.  Massey  :  That  was  your  deduction. 

Mr.  CouLLiNG  :  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Massey  :  Do  you  withdraw  the  deduction  ? 

Mr.  C GULLING  :  No,  sir  ;  I  affirmed  that  that  was  his 
argument;  not  my  deduction  ;  nor  my  argument,  but 
his  argument ;  and  I  commented  upon  his  argument,  as 
I  understood  4t.  Now  if  he  is  dissatisfied  with  his  ar- 
gument, he  can  withdraw  it. 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  127 

'  Mr.  Massey  :  I  will  show  you,  my  hearerS)  that  the 
gentleman  is  mistaken.  He  drew  this  deduction  from 
the  argument,  and  I  will  satisfy  even  him  that  he  did  it. 
The  commission,  according  to  his  (my)  view,  said  he, 
requires  faith  before  baptism.  Infants  cannot  believe  ; 
therefore,  they  cannot  be  baptized.  The  same  commis- 
sion, he  declares,  requires  faith  as  a  prerequisite  to  sal- 
vation. ''  He  that  believeth  not,  shall  be  damned." 
Infants  cannot  believe,  and  therefore,  according  to  that 
mode  of  argument,  infants  will  be  lost. 

Mr.  CouLLiNG  :  That  is  the  deduction  ? 

Mr.  Massey  :  Certainly ;  that  is  what  I  said,  and 
you  denied.  Now,  I  ask,  what  does  such  a  deduction 
as  this  amount  to  ?  What  is  it  worth  ?  I  will  give 
you  a  deduction  from  the  commission,  which  is  perfectly 
legitimate.  Here  is  my  theory  upon  the  subject.  None 
to  whom  the  gospel  is  addressed,  can  be  saved  without 
faith.  Infants  are  saved  ivithout  faith  ;  therefore,  the 
gospel  is  not  addressed  to  infants.  That  is  the  proper 
view  of  the  subject.  The  commission  does  not  authorize 
the  apostles  of  Jesus  Christ  to  address  infants.  I  think 
the  brother  will  hardly  claim  that  infants  were  lost  prior 
to  this  gospel  dispensation.  If  not,^  how  were  they 
saved  ?  I  Ihink  he  will  hardly  deny  that  they  were 
saved  before  circumcision  was  introduced.  How  were 
they  then  saved  ?  I  believe  in  the  salvation  of  all  who 
die  in  a  state  of  infancy.  But,  if  their  salvation  de- 
pended upon  their  compliance  with  the  commission,  as 
given  by  Jesus  Christ  to  the  apostles,  they  never  would 
be  saved.  Their  salvation  depends  not  upon  their  exer- 
cise of  faith.  You  must  look  for  infant  salvation  some- 
where else,  and  it  will   be  time  enough  to  do  so,  when 


128  DEBATE    ON    THE 

that  subject  comes  under  consideration.  I  simply  state 
my  own  belief  about  infant  salvation,  to  show  that  the 
deduction  of  the  brother  is  wholly  unwarranted  by  any- 
thing I  said. 

And  then  another  thing  in  regard  to  the  commission. 
He  says  that  the  Greek  word,  nLGrevaag^  rendered  in 
Mark  believelh^  is  in  the  aorist  tense,  which  conveys 
the  idea  of  completed  action.  What  does  the  gentleman 
undertake  to  teach  by  that  criticism  ?  Does  he  pretend 
for  a  moment  to  claim  that  the  apostles,  going  out  to 
preach,  the  gospel  where  it  had  never  been  preached^ 
found  men  already  believing  that  gospel  before  they  had 
.ever  heard  it  ?  When  missionaries  go  to  the  heathen, 
will  they  have  nothing  to  do  but  to  baptize  them,  be- 
cause they  will  fmd  them  already  believing  ?  If  he 
will  look  intu  the  subject  a  little  more  carefully,  he  will 
find  that  the  exercise  of  faith  must  be  completed  prior  to 
baptism,  but  not  prior  to  instruction.  He  will  find  him- 
self as  unfortunate  by  that  criticism  as  some  others  he 
has  presented.  If  the  gentleman  understands  the  force 
of  his  own  criticism,  I  can  see  but  one  object  for  making 
it.  It  does  convey  the  idea  that  there  must  be  the  exer- 
cise of  faith  prior  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  but  not 
prior  to  that  instruction  which  leads  to  the  exercise  of 
that  faith.  If  the  gentleman  did  not  wish  to  mystify 
this  subject  by  this  criticism,  I  do  not  see  what  his  ob- 
ject was.  He  cannot  believe  that  men  are  believers 
before  they  hear  the  gospel.  If  they  are,  then  what 
need  is  there  to  preach  the  gospel  ? 

He  drew  an  argument  from  the  silence  of  the  Jews 
with  regard  to  the  neglect  of  infants  :  he  is  surprised 
that,  having  been  accustomed  to  circumcise  their  in- 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  129 

fants,  they  should  make  no  ''sth'"  about  it,  if  no  rite 
was  given  as  a  substitute  for  that.  The  Jews,  no  doubt, 
understood  that  the  gospel  presented  them  something 
different  from  what  they  had  before.  The  fact  that  they 
did  so  understand  it,  may  account  for  their  great  opposi- 
tion to  it.  Nothing  but  divine  power  could  subdue  their 
enmity  to  the  gospel,  and  lead  them  to  embrace  it. 
There  seems  to  me  to  be  a  strange  inconsistency  in  his 
reading,  in  connection  with  that  argument,  this  passage 
from  Acts  xxi.,  commencing  with  the  twenty-first  verse  : 

*'And  they  are  informed  of  thee,  that  thou  teachest 
all  the  Jews  which  are  among  the  G-entiles  to  forsake 
Moses." 

Is  there  no  stir  about  it?  Mr.  Coulling  seemed  to 
think  that  there  was  a  ^reat  stir  about  it,  and  that 
brother  Paul  took  it  back.  Now  what  did  Paul  take  back  ? 

''And  they  are  informed  of  thee,  that  thou  teachest 
all  the  Jews  which  are  among  the  Gentiles  to  forsake 
Moses,  saying.  That  they  ought  not  to  circumcise  their 
children,  neither  to  walk  after  the  customs.  What  is  it, 
therefore  ?  the  multitude  must  needs  come  together  : 
for  they  will  hear  that  thou  art  come.  Do  therefore 
this  that  we  say  to  thee :  We  have  four  men  which 
have  a  vow  upon  them ;  them  take,  and  purify  thyself 
with  them,  and  be  at  charges  with  them,  that  they  may 
shave  their  heads :  and  all  may  know,  that  those  things 
whereof  they  were  informed  concerning  thee,  are  noth- 
ing, but  that  thou  thyself  also  walkest  orderly,  and 
keepest  the  law.  As  touching  the  Gentiles  which  be- 
lieve, we  have  written,  and  concluded  that  they  observe 
no  such  thing." 

Many  of  the    Jews   had   not   rightly  comprehended 

6# 


130  DEBATE    ON    THE 

the  great  gospel  scheme.  Judaizing  teachers  had 
gone  forth,  and  taught  that  the  Gentiles  who  became 
believers  should  not  only  be  baptized  but  circumcised 
also.  Here  a  question  arises.  A  "  stir"  is  created; 
they  hear  that  Paul  teaches  that  this  was  not  an 
appendage  of  the  gospel.  And  hence  the  Jews  were 
disposed  to  question  Paul's  conducting  himself  orderly 
according  to  the  law.  But  do  we  find  Paul  attempting 
for  one  moment  to  justify  the  circumcision  of  their  chil- 
dren ?  or  for  a  moment  teaching  the  idea  that  baptism 
is  given  in  place  of  circumcision  ?  Read  his  defence  in 
the  twenty. second  chapter  of  Acts,  and  you  w^ill  see  that 
he  lets  them  understand  that  his  business  was  not  to 
preach  Moses.  That  while  he  walked  orderly  and  main- 
tained the  law  as  a  good  citizen,  his  mission  was  to 
preach  to  the  G-entiles,  Christ,  and  him  crucified.  "  Grod 
sent  me,"  said  he,  "  to  preach  the  gospel.'''' 

I  again  call  your  attention  to  Acts  xvi.  14,  15 — the 
case  of  Lydia,  alluded  to  by  Mr.  Coulling  on  yesterday: 

*' And  a  certain  woman  named  Lydia,  a  seller  of  pur- 
ple, of  the  city  of  Thyatira,  which  worshipped  God, 
heard  us  :  whose  heart  the  Lord  opened,  that  she  at- 
tended unto  the  things  which  were  spoken  of  Paul.  And 
when  she  was  baptized,  and  her  household,  she  besought 
us,  saying,  If  ye  have  judged  me  to  be  faithful  to  the 
Lord,  come  into  my  house,  and  abide  there.  And  she 
constrained  us." 

The  brother  "  infers'^  that  there  were  infants  in  the 
house  of  Lydia  ;  but  this  inference  is  unsustained  by 
anything  in  the  text,  or  anything  in  her  history.  There 
is  not  the  slightest  evidence  that  she  was  the  mother  of 
either  grown  or  infant  children.      For  aught  we  know 


SUBJECTS    OP    BAPTISM. 


131 


to  the  contrary,  she  was,  and  ever  had  been,  a  single 
woman.  AVe  find,  from  the  last  verse  of  this  chapter, 
that  Paul  and  Silas  "  went  out  of  the  prison  and  enter- 
ed into  the  house  of  Lydia  ;  and  when  they  had  seen 
the  brethren,  they  comforted  them  and  departed."  Now, 
whoever  those  were  that  belonged  to  Lydia's  household, 
they  were  capable  of  receiving  comfort  and  consolation 
from  the  instructions  of  the  apostles. 

I  presume,  as  1  have  given  you  the  text.,  I  may  now 
read  what  Dr.  Clarke  says  upon  this  passage. 

*'  She  attended  unto  the  things^  &c.]  She  believed 
them,  and  received  them  as  the  doctrines  of  God  ;  and 
in  this  faith  she  was  joined  by  her  whole  family,  and  in 
it  they  were  all  baptized." 

Now,  who  her  family  were,  it  is  not  for  me  to  say. 
They  may  have  been  domestics,  or  aids  in  her  merchan- 
dising. She  was  from  Thyatira,  three  hundred  miles 
distant,  a  seller  of  purple,  on  a  trading  mission.  But 
whoever  heard  of  anything  so  remarkable  as  the  effort, 
from  such  remote  inferences  as  these,  to  set  aside  the 
commission,  and  all  the  plain  acts  of  the  apostles  under 
that  commission  ?  I  have  shown  you,  that  in  every 
single  case  of  baptism  recorded  in  the  word  of  G-od, 
faith  is  a  pre-requisite.  My  brother  says,  that  he  agrees 
that  nine  tenths  of  these  cases  were  those  of  adults. 
Now,  will  he  point  me  to  the  cases  of  infants  ?  These 
are  all  the  cases  /  can  find,  and  not  one  infant  among 
them.  If  there  are  any  cases  of  infant  baptism  record- 
ed there,  surely  the  gentleman  can  find  them.  /  can- 
not refer  to  a  single  case. 

Dr.  Empie  says:  Empie  on  Baptism,  p.  131.  ^^  All 
the  recorded  instances  of  baptism   (in  the  New  Testa- 


132  DEBATE    ON    THE 

ment)  are  cases  of  adults.''^  Professor  Stewart  says,  that 
he  finds  "  neither  command  nor  precept  for  baptizing 
infants  in  the  word  of  God."  •  And  so  with  other  au- 
thorities. To  predicate  infant  baptism  upon  the  bare 
presumption  that  Mrs.  Lydia  (?)  was  the  mother  of  a  large 
family  of  infant  children,  shows  how  hard  our  opponents 
are  pressed  to  find  it  in  the  word  of  G-od.  And  yet  it 
was  her  house,  and  she  had  entire  control  of  affairs  ;  Mr. 
Lydia  had  nothing  to  do  with  matters  there.  I  would 
like  to  be  introduced  to  Madame  Lydia's  "i6?6>r5er  half." 
Bear  in  mind  I  am  not  merely  calling  your  attention  to 
the  comments ;  I  have  read  the  passage  of  Scripture, 
and  given  my  views,  and  now  I  will  show  that  Pedo- 
baptists  sustain  these  views.  And  I  will  say  here,  as 
reference  has  been  made  to  oiKog  and  okm,  that  no  ar- 
gument can  be  drawn  in  favor  of  infant  baptism  from 
oltiog  or  olnia.  These  terms  are  used  interchangably  in  the 
word  of  G-od.  A  few  years  ago,  when  this  hypothesis 
was  first  brought  to  my  notice,  I  examined  every  place 
in  the  Greek  Testament,  where  olnog  and  okm,  and  their 
cognates  occur,  and  satisfied  myself  that  they  were  not 
only  used  interchangeably,  but  that  no  argument,  based 
upon  these  words,  could  be  made  by  Pedobaptists  in  sup- 
port of  infant  baptism.  Donnegan's  Greek  Lexicon 
gives  this  meaning  of  olKog,  ov,  6:  a  house  ;  a  chamber  : 
a  tent ;  a  household  ;  property  belonging  to  a  family  ;  a 
family;  a  race."  OlKLa,ag,ri:  a  house;  a  dwelling;  but 
especially,  sl  family  ;  the  persons  of  a  household." 
Grove's  Greek  Lexicon,  gives  oUbg  this  meaning.  ''  A 
house,  a  mansion,  dwelling,  abode  ;  a  house  of  God, 
temple  ;  a  palace,  court ;  an  apartment,  a  home ;  a 
family,    household  ;    lineage,    descent  ;    property,    sub- 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  133 

stance."  "  0km,  from  ohbg,  he  defines  a  house,  dwell- 
ing, residence,  abode  ;  a  household,  family." 

Olshausen  (vol.  iii.,  page  347)  says  upon  this  passage  : 

"  It  is  highly  improbable  that  the  phrase  ohog  avrrjg, 
he?'  Iiouseholdj  should  be  understood  as  including  infant 
children  :  relatives,  servants,  grown  children  might  be 
baptized  along  with  her,  for  they  would  at  once  be  car- 
ried away  by  the  youthful  power  of  her  new  life  of  faith. 
There  is  altogether  wanting  any  conclusive  proof-pas- 
sage for  the  baptism  of  children  in  the  age  of  the  apos- 
tles ;  nor  can  the  necessity  of  it  be  deduced  from  the 
nature  of  baptism." 

And  at  the  bottom  of  the  page,  is  the  following  note 
by  the  editor  : 

"  In  the  words  describing  the  institution  of  baptism, 
in  Matth.  xxviii.  19,  the  connection  of  liadrireveiv ^  dis- 
cipling,  with  (Sairri^eLv^  baptizing,  and  dcSdoKeiv^  teaching, 
appears  quite  positively  to  oppose  the  idea,  that  the  bap- 
tism of  children  entered  at  first  into  the  view  of  Christ." 

I  think,  my  hearers,  these  evidences  and  arguments 
are  enough  to  satisfy  this  audience,  with  regard  to  what 
was  said  by  the  gentleman  upon  these  passages. 

I  now  come  to  the  argument  that  I  was  presenting  on 
yesterday,  to  show  that  believers  are  the  only  scriptural 
subjects  of  apostolic  or  Christian  baptism.  I  have 
gone  through  all  the  cases  of  baptism  recorded  in  the 
word  of  G-od.  I  have  shown  you,  I  think,  beyond  ques- 
tion, that  all  these  cases  were  cases  of  adult  baptism — 
cases  of  baptism  of  professed  believers  in  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ.  I  now  come  to  arguments  drawn  from  history. 
I  will  show  you  that  Church  history  establishes  the  fact 


134  DEBATE    ON    THE 

that  infant  baptism  was  unknoivn  in  the  early  ages  of 
the  Church.  The  baptism  of  believers  was  the  universal 
practice  of  the  Christian  Church,  until  the  corruptions 
of  the  third  century. 

I  have  here  Dr.  Mosheim's  "  Church  History/'  trans- 
lated from  the  original  Latin,  with  notes,  chronological 
tables,  and  an  appendix,  by  Dr.  Maclaine.  He  comes, 
not  as  a  theologian,  but  as  a  historian,  to  record  facts: 
a  Pedobaptist  historian.  He  will  certainly  not  make  a 
record  against  himself,  unless  he  be  compelled  to  do  so 
hy  facts.     In  vol.  1,  page  38,  we  find  the  following: 

"  Nor,  in  this  first  century,  was  the  distinction  made 
between  Christians  of  a  more  or  less  perfect  order,  which 
took  place  afterward.  Whoever  acknowledged  Christ 
as  the  Saviour  of  mankind,  and  made  a  solemn  profes- 
sion of  his  confidence  in  him,  was  immediately  baptized 
and  received  into  the  Church.  But  when  the  Church 
began  to  flourish,  and  its  members  to  increase,  it  was 
thought  prudent  and  necessary  to  divide  Christians  into 
two  orders,  distinguished  by  the  name  of  believers  and 
catechumens.  The  former  were  those  who  had  been 
solemnly  admitted  into  the  Church  by  baptism,  and,  in 
consequence  thereof,  were  instructed  in  all  the  mysteries 
of  religion,  had  access  to  all  the  parts  of  diyine  worship, 
and  were  authorized  to  vote  in  the  ecclesiastical  assem- 
blies. The  latter  were  such  as  had  not  yet  been  dedi- 
cated to  Grod  and  Christ  by  baptism,  and  were,  there- 
fore, neither  admitted  to  the  public  prayers  nor  the  holy 
communion,  nor  to  the  ecclesiastical  assemblies." 

On  page  69,  he  says  (of  the  second  century) : 

*'  The  sacrament  of  baptism  was  administered  pub- 
licly twice  every  year,  at  the  festivals  of  Easter  and 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  135 

Pentecost  or  Whitsuntide,  either  by  the  bishop,  or,  in 
conseqaence  of  his  authorization  and  appointment,  by 
the  presbyters.  The  persons  that  were  to  be  baptized, 
after  they  had  repeated  the  Creed,  confessed  and  re- 
nounced their  sins,  and  particularly  the  devil  and  his 
pompous  allurements,  were  immersed  under  water,  and 
received  into  Christ's  kingdom  by  a  solemn  invocation 
of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  according  to  the  express 
command  of  our  blessed  Lord." 

On  page  91  (speaking  of  the  third  century),  he  says : 

"  There  were,  twice  a  year,  stated  times  when  bap- 
tism w^as  administered  to  such  as,  after  a  long  course  of 
trial  and  preparation,  offered  themselves  as  candidates 
for  the  profession  of  Christianity." 

I  now  invite  your  attention  to  Dr.  Augustus  Neander, 
another  distinguished  Pedobaptist  Church  historian.  In 
vol.  1 ,  page  305,  he  says : 

"  We  shall  speak  first  of  baptism.  At  the  beginning, 
when  it  was  important  that  the  Church  should  rapidly 
extend  itself,  those  who  confessed  their  belief  in  Jesus 
as  the  Messiah  (among  the  Jews),  or  their  belief  in  one 
Grod,  and  in  Jesus  as  the  Messiah  (among  the  Grentiles), 
were  immediately  baptized,  as  appears  from  the  New 
Testament." 

On  page  306,  he  says : 

"Some  traces  of  a  confession  Of  faith,  ^hich  was 
made  at  baptism,  are  to  be  found  even  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament. Such  confessions  of  faith  were  afterward  more 
fully  drawn  out,  in  opposition  to  Jews,  to  pagans,  and 
to  heretics.  These  confessions  were  intended  to  embrace 
those  essentials  of  Christianity  wherein  all  the  Churches 
were  agreed.    It  was  believed  that  the  doctrine  expressed 


136  DEBATE    ON    THE 

in  these  confessions  of  faith  proceeded  from  the  apostles ; 
that  it  was  the  doctrine  which  they  preached  in  living 
words  and  in  their  writings ;  but  it  was  by  no  means 
the  opinion  in  the  beginning,  that  the  apostles  had  drawn 
up  any  such  confession  in  words." 

On  page  807,  he  says : 

*'  This  confession  was  put  into  the  hands  of  the  cate- 
chumens, as  a  document  which  contained  the  essentials 
of  Christianity.  Many  who  had  been  led  to  embrace 
the  faith  after  much  inquiry,  after  consulting  different 
religious  writings  and  reading  the  Scriptures  for  them- 
selves, of  course  did  not  need  it  to  keep  them  in  the 

knowledge  of  Christianity Others,  however, 

obtained  their  first  knowledge  of  Christianity  from  the 
instruction  contained  in  the  confession  of  faith,  and  im- 
parted in  connection  with  it,  without  finding  themselves 
in  a  situation,  till  sometime  afterward,  of  comparing 
with  the  Scriptures  what  they  had  thus  received  from 
human  tradition.  It  was  of  these  the  Gnostic  Heracleon 
remarked  :  '  They  are  led  first  to  believe  on  the  Saviour 
by  the  testimony  of  men  ;  but  when  they  come  to  his 
own  words,  they  believe  no  longer  on  the  ground  of  hu- 
man testimony  alone,  but  for  the  sake  of  the  truth  it- 
self;'  and,  in  reference  to  the  same  class,  Clement  of 
Alexandria  says :  '  The  first  saving  change  from  heath- 
enism is  faith.  That  is,  a  compendious  knowledge  of 
all  that  is  necessary  to  salvation.'  " 

On  page  311,  he  says : 

"  Baptism  was  administered,  at  first,  only  to  adults, 
as  men  were  accustomed  to  conceive  baptism  and  faith 
as  strictly  connected.  We  have  all  reason  for  not  deriving 
infant  baptism  from  apostolic  institution,  and  the  recog- 


SUBJECTS    OF'  BAPTISM.  l'^7 

nition  of  it,  which  followed  somewhat  later,  as  an  apos- 
tolic tradition,  serves  to  confirm  this  hypothesis." 

I  have  here  a  work  written  by  a  Baptist :  but  what  I 
purpose  reading  to  you  will  be  quotations  which  he  has 
made  from  Pedobaptist  authorities  ;  hence  it  does  not  in 
anywise  change  the  fact  that  it  is  still  Pedobaptist  tes- 
timony. In  "  The  Evils  of  Infant  Baptism,"  by  Dr. 
Howell,  on  page  20,  we  find  these  quotations  : 

"  Martin  Luther,  the  great  father  of  the  Reformation, 
says  :  '  It  cannot  be  proved  by  the  Scriptures  that  infant 
baptism  was  instituted  by  Christ,  or  begun  by  the  first 
Christians  after  the  apostles."  [Apud  Yan.  Inf.  Bapt., 
part  2,  p.  8.]  John  Calvin  testifies  thus  :  '  It  is  nowhere 
expressly  mentioned  by  the  evangelists  that  any  child 
was  by  the  apostles  baptized.' — (Institutes  of  Eeligion, 
Liber  4,  &c.,  &c.)  Bishop  Burnet  avers — '  There  is  no 
express  precept  or  rule  given  in  the  New  Testament^  for 
the  baptism  of  infants.' — (Expos.  39  Arts.,  Art.  18.) 
Strarck  says :  '  The  connection  of  infant  baptism  with 
circumcision  deserves  no  consideration,  since  there  were 
physical  reasons  for  circumcising  in  infancy.' — (Hist. 
Bap.,  p.  11.)  Augusti  says  :  '  The  parallel  between 
circumcision  and  baptism  is  altogether  foreign  to  the 
New  Testament.'— (Works,  vol.  7,  p.  329.)  Bishop 
Jeremy  Taylor  thus  writes  :  '  For  the  argument  from 
circumcision,  it  is  invalid  from  infinite  considerations. 
Figures  and  types  prove  nothing,  unless  a  command  go 
along  with  them,  or  some  express  [declaration]  to  signify 
such  to  be  their  purpose.' — (Liberty  of  Prophesying, 
pp.  228-246.)  Dr.  Woods,  of  Andover,  remarks :  '  It 
is  a  plain  case  that  there  is  no  express  precept  respect- 
ing infant  baptism  in  our  sacred  writings.     The  proof. 


138  DEBATE    ON    THE J 

then,  that  it  is  a  divine  institution,  must  be  made  out 
in  some  other  way.' — (Lect.  on  Inf.  Bapt.,  p.  11.)  Prof. 
Stuart  says :  '  Commands,  or  plain  and  certain  examples 
in  the  New  Testament,  relative  to  it,  [infant  baptism,]  I 
do  not  find.'— (Biblical  Repository,  1833,  p.  385.)  And 
finally.  Dr.  Neander  declares:  'As  baptism  was  closely 
united  with  a  conscious  entrance  on  Christian  commu- 
nion, faith  and  baptism  were  always  connected  with  one 
another ;  and  thus  it  is  in  the  highest  degree  probable, 
that  baptism  was  performed  only  in  instances  where 
both  could  meet  together,  and  that  the  practice  of  infant 
baptism  was  unknown  to  the  apostolic  age.' — (Planting 
and  Training,  p.  101.)" 

I  will  now  read  from  Neander,  vol.  ii.  page  319  ;  (He 
is  speaking  of  the  period  from  212  to  590.)     He  says  : 

"  It  was  still  very  far  from  being  the  case,  especially 
in  the  Greek  Church,  that  infant  baptism,  although  ac- 
knowledged to  be  necessary,  was  generally  introduced 
into  practice.  Partly,  the  same  mistaken  notions  which 
arose  from  confounding  the  thing  represented  by  bap- 
tism with  the  outward  rite,  and  which  afterwards  led  to 
the  over-valuation  of  infant  baptism,  and  partly,  the 
frivolous  tone  of  thinking,  the  indifference  to  all  higher 
concerns,  which  characterized  so  many  who  had  only 
exchanged  the  Pagan  for  a  Christian  outside — all  this 
together,  contributed  to  bring  it  about.  That  among 
the  Christians  of  the  East,  infant  baptism,  though  in 
theory  acknowledged  to  be  necessary,  yet  entered  so 
rarely  and  with  so  much  difficulty  into  the  Church  life 
during  the  first  half  of  this  period." 

We  see  that  although  they  had  commenced  to  intro- 
duce it,  and  to  propagate  the  theory  that  led  to  it,  they 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  139 

found  great  difficulty  in  introducing  it,  and  it  was  in- 
troduced very  gradually.  G-ieseler,  another  Church  his- 
torian, Doctor  of  Philosophy  and  Theology,  and  Professor 
of  Theology  in  Grottingen,  says,  on  page  294  : 

"  The  baptism  of  infants  did  not  become  universal 
until  after  the  time  of  Augustine." 

(Augustine  died  about  the  year  430.)  Here  are 
"  Christian  Antiquities,"  by  Dr.  Riddle.  I  need  not  tell 
you  what  this  work  is  ;  the  brother  will  endorse  it  him- 
self, as  he  brought  it  here.  On  page  444  of  Christian 
Antiquities,  you  will  find  the  following : 

"  The  general  adoption  of  the  practice  of  infant  bap- 
tism, has  so  far  affected  the  regulations  of  the  Church, 
concerning  the  qualifications  and  admission  of  candi- 
dates for  this  sacred  ordinance,  that  what  was  formerly 
the  rule  in  this  respect,  has  become  the  exception.  The 
institutions  of  the  Church  during  the  first  five  centu- 
ries, concerning  the  preparations  for  baptism,  and  all  the 
laws  and  rules  which  existed  during  this  period,  relating 
to  the  acceptance  or  rejection  of  candidates,  necessarily 
fell  into  disuse  when  the  baptism  of  infants  was  not 
only  permitted,  but  enjoined  as  a  duty,  and  almost  uni- 
versally observed.  The  old  rule  w^hich  prescribed  cau- 
tion in  the  admission  of  candidates,  and  a  careful  pre- 
paration for  the  rite,  was  applicable  for  the  most  part 
only  to  Jewish,  heathen,  and  other  proselytes,  after  the 
sixth  century." 

I  think  I  have  presented  you  with  sufficient  testi- 
mony, to  show  what  the  practice  of  the  Church  in  the 
early  ages  of  Christianity  was.  The  brother  was  very  elo- 
quent yesterday,  when  he  spoke  of  the  "  stir "  that 
would  have  been  made,  if  the   apostles  and  Christians 


140  DEBATE    ON    THE 

had  begun  to  neglect  infants,  or  had  not  given  them 
baptism.  Here,  we  find  that  there  was  great  difficulty, 
according  to  Church  historians,  in  introducing  infant 
baptism  even  after  the  corruptions  of  the  age  had  evolv- 
ed the  theory  from  which  the  practice  sprung. 

Now,  in  regard  to  the  little  children  that  were  brought 
to  Christ.  As  I  have  but  little  time  left,  I  will  refer  at 
once  to  what  Dr.  Olshausen  says  upon  the  subject.  It 
is  upon  Matthew  xix.  1,  3,  and  4  verses  ;  where  they 
brought  little  children  to  Jesus,  that  He  might  lay  his 
hands  upon  them  and  bless  them,  and  the  disciples  re- 
buked them  ;  but  Jesus  said,  "  Suffer  little  children  to 
come  unto  me  and  forbid  them  not,  for  of  such  is  the 
Kingdom  of  Heaven."  The  idea  which  the  brother 
seems  to  draw  from  this  is,  that  this  justifies  the  con- 
clusion that  infants  were  proper  subjects  for  the  king- 
dom of  Heaven,  and  therefore^  proper  subjects  for  bap- 
tism. If  you  should  see  any  one  bringing  an  infant  to 
me  to  be  baptized,  and  should  hear  my  Baptist  brethren 
objecting  to  their  coming  to  me,  the  natural  conclusion 
would  be  that  I  was  not  accustomed  to  baptizing  in- 
fants. No  Methodist  would  raise  such  an  objection  to 
your  taking  them  to  brother  Coulling.  for  he  is  accus- 
tomed to  it.  Suppose  that  Jesus  Christ  had  been  accus- 
tomed to  baptizing  infants,  would  the  disciples  have  re- 
buked those  who  brought  them  to  him  ?  Christ's  disci- 
ples were  certainly  not  Methodists.  Dr.  Olshausen 
says,  vol.  ii.  p.  106 : 

*'  Of  that  reference  to  infant  baptism,  which  it  is  so 
common  to  seek  in  this  narrative,  there  is  clearly  not 
the  slightest  trace  to  be  found.  The  Saviour  sets  the 
children  before  the  apostles  as  symbols  of  spiritual  re- 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  141 

generation,  and  of  the  simple  childlike  feeling  therein 
imparted.  (But  infant  baptism  stands  connected  with 
regeneration,  only  in  so  far  as  we  view  it,  in  combina- 
tion with  the  personal  and  conscious  reception  of  the 
Grospel — an  act  which  confirmation  is  intended  to  repre- 
sent). On  the  part  of  the  parents,  however,  when  they 
brought  their  children,  there  w^as  evidently  nothing  more 
intended,  than  to  have  a  spiritual  blessing  bestowed 
upon  them,  and  this  the  little  ones  received  by  the  lay- 
ing on  of  Christ's  hands.  Being  conveyed  to  them 
through  the  accompanying  prayer,  it  could  not  fail  to 
exercise  a  beneficent  spiritual  influence." 

Though  this  man  advocates  infant  baptism,  yet  when- 
ever we  bring  forward  any  portion  of  the  word  of  G-od, 
where  it  is  claimed  that  infant  baptism  is  to  be  found, 
he  admits,  in  almost  every  case,  that  it  is  not  there. 
He  takes  the  plain,  common  sense,  rational  view  of  the 
text,  and  finds  no  infant  baptism  in  it ;  and  it  is  the 
view  all  of  us  would  take  from  the  w^ord  of  G-od.  No 
man  would  think  of  seeking  infant  baptism  in  that  pas- 
sage, if  he  had  not  a  theory  to  support,  which  was  in 
desperate  need  of  a  prop  ;  but  this  case,  so  far  from 
teaching  infant  baptism,  is  in  direct  conflict  with  the 
idea  that  infant  baptism  was  known  to  the  Apostles. 
[Time  expired.] 


MR.  COULLmG'S  FOURTH  REPLY. 

Mr.  CouLLiNG :  It  would  suit  me,  just  at  this  time,  to 
begin  where  my  good  brother  left  off.  He  wants  to 
make  the  impression  upon  your  minds  that  I  adduced 
this  passage  which  he   last   quoted    from  Matthew,  to 


142  DEBATE    ON    THE 

prove  infant  baptism,  and  reads  Mr.  Olshausen  there  as 
evidence  to  that  effect.  Now  I  submit  to  you,  if  I  in- 
troduced it  for  any  such  purpose. 

Mr.  Massey  :  I  said  you  introduced  it  to  show  that 
they  were  fit  subjects  for  the  kingdom  of  Heaven,  and 
therefore  fit  subjects  for  the  Church. 

Mr.  CouLLiNG :  But  you  said  I  tried  to  adduce  infant 
baptism  from  it. 

Mr.  Massey:  I  would  be  glad  to  know  what  you 
introduced  it  for,  ii not  to  sustain  Infant  Baptism? 

Mr.  CouLLiNG :  I  introduced  it  to  show  that  infant 
children  were  introduced  by, the  Redeemer  to  show  the 
moral  character  believers  should  have.  Again,  he  says 
that  the  introduction  of  it  proves  the  very  reverse  of 
what  I  introduced  it  for  ;  that  the  fact  was,  that  the  Sa- 
viour was  not  in  the  habit  of  doing  such  things,  and  the 
apostles  did  not  like  it,  because  it  was  an  innovation 
upon  the  Saviour's  habits.  Is  that  so  ?  What  did  the 
Saviour  say  ?  This  is  the  import  of  what  he  said  :  I  am 
surprised  that  you  have  not  yet  caught  the  spirit  of  my 
teachings  :  SufTer  little  children  to  come  unto  me,  and 
forbid  them  not.  The  brother  says  they  knew  all  the 
Saviour  did,  and  all  his  feelings  upon  the  subject,  and 
they  repelled  them,  as  he  would  ;  but  I,  being  accus- 
tomed to  such  things,  would  receive  them.  Now,  does 
the  text,  or  the  context,  teach  any  ^uch  idea,  or  justify 
any  such  deduction?  It  proves  that  the  disciples  were 
very  slow,  like  a  great  many  other  people  in  the  world, 
to  learn  their  Lord's  will  upon  the  subject.  And  it 
proves,  ihat  under  the  impulse  of  those  natural  feelings 
of  revulsion  to  the  will  of  God,  they  repelled  the  chil- 
dren from  the  blessed  Saviour:  just  as  they  wanted  to 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  143 

call  down  fire  from  heaven  to  consume  the  people,  be- 
cause they  did  not  do  as  they  thought  right :  just  as 
they  said,  We  forbade  those  who  cast  out  devils  in  thy 
name  ;  but  the  Master  said,  You  ought  not  to  have  done 
it.  Now,  let  me  take  up  those  passages,  to  prove  that 
because  Jesus  Christ  was  ift  the  habit  of  calling  down 
fire  from  heaven,  his  followers  also  called  it  down ;  be- 
cause Jesus  Christ  was  in  the  habit  of  repelling  chil- 
dren, therefore  the  apostles  repelled  them,  and  you  will 
have  the  force  of  his  argument.  Now,  is  not  that 
enough  upon  that  point  ?  Does  it  not  stand  where  I  put 
it,  in  spite  of  all  he  has  said  to  the  contrary  ?  And 
does  it  not  prove  just  what  I  brought  it  forward  to 
prove  ? 

Now,  I  will  go  back  to  the  beginning.  He,  I  think, 
misunderstood  me  ;  and  unintentionally,  I  think,  seemed 
to  make  the  impression,  at  any  rate,  that  I  had  done 
him  injustice  in  what  I  said  last  evening,  in  reference 
to  his  appeal  to  commentaries.  What  I  did  say  was 
this — and  I  repeat  it,  and  I  leave  it  to  you  to  judge  be- 
tween us ;  and  I  do  it  altogether  in  a  spirit  of  kindness. 
I  said  this,  in  proving  the  several  positions  that  1  had 
sustained,  that  I  chose  to  look  to  the  texts  of  Scripture, 
and  take  them  and  bring  them  together.  I  thought 
that  was  reasonable,  because  the  proposition  said  Scrip- 
ture. The  Bible  was  to  me  the  last  resort.  But  I  said, 
while  he  referred  to  passages  of  Scripture,  he  relied  upon 
the  comments  upon  those  passages  for  his  proof,  not 
upon  those  passages  themselves  as  they  stood,  but  upon 
the  understanding  of  those  passages  by  the  commenta- 
tors. Is  not  that  so  ?  That  is  just  the  impression  that 
I  intended  to  make.     He  brings  forward  a  passage  of 


144  DEBATE    ON    THE 

Scripture  :  that  passage  may  be  doubtful,  ambiguous,  not 
such  as  exactly  to  suit  his  purposes,  as  a  great  many  of 
them  do  not.  Then  he  brins^s  forward  a  commentator  who 
happens  to  view  the  subject  in  some  light  that  seems  to 
favor  the  view  that  he  wishes  to  sustain.  He  reads  that 
commentary,  and  relies  upcm  it  and  not  upon  the  text. 
Js  that  not  so?  I  do  not  blame  him  for  it,  for  it  is  a 
dire  necessity  of  the  case.  If  the  text  proved  it,  he 
would  not  want  a  commentary  ;  but  as  it  does  not,  ho 
relies  upon  the  commentary.  That  is  the  sum  and  sub- 
stance of  what  I  wished  to  say. 

Again,  he  introduced  what  he  called  my  deduction 
from  his  argument  upon  the  commission.  I  think,  the 
probability  is,  that  at  the  time  I  made  that  remark,  he 
was  engaged  in  some  way  :  I  would  not  be  surprised  if 
he  was  writing,  or  something  of  the  kind  :  and  his  mind 
was  not  exectly  fixed  upon  what  I  said.  For,  some- 
times when  I  have  asked  him  something  he  has  said, 
he  has  replied :  "  Well,  really,  I  was  engaged,  and  did 
not  understand  you."  So  with  myself,  when  I  am  tak- 
ing notes  of  his  argument,  I  do  not  always  hear  all  that 
he  says.  Hence  the  want  of  clearness  in  his  apprehen- 
sion— at  least,  in  the  manner  in  which  he  seemed  to 
express  it.  Now,  here  is  the  fact,  as  I  understand  it. 
He  argues  here  that  the  commission  given  by  the  blessed 
Redeemer  is  our  charter  to  administer  baptism  ;  that 
beyond  the  limits  and  confines  of  that  commission  we 
have  no  right  to  go.  Do  you  not  all  understand  him  so  ? 
That  the  commission,  saying  expressly  that  you  must 
believe  before  you  are  baptized,  shuts  us  up  to  what  he 
calls  believer's  baptism  only.  Now,  I  affirm  that  if  that 
mode  of  reasoning  is  correct,  it  follows,  that  because  in- 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  145 

fants  cannot  believe,  therefore  they  cannot  be  baptized  ; 
that  the  very  commission  which  says,  according  to 
him,  believe  and  be  baptized,  says  also,  believe  and  be 
saved  ;  and  if  incapacity  to  believe  excludes  from  bap- 
tism, the  argument  proves  that  it  excludes  them  from 
salvation.  Then,  to  meet  that  argument  right  there, 
he  comes  right  out  and  breaks  down  the  fence  that  he 
£as  labored  for  two  days  to  put  up,  and  lets  out  infant 
salvation  and  infant  baptism  ;  and,  according  to  him, 
you  must  go  somewhere  else  to  prove  infant  salvation, 
and,  of  course,  we  can  go  somewhere  else  to  prove  infant 
baptism.  And  certainly,  according  to  the  gentleman's 
own  admission,  this  commission  is  not  full  instruction 
in  reference  to  children,  for  it  does  not  teach  how  chil- 
dren are  to  be  saved. 

Mr.  Massey  :  It  does  not  teach  anything  about  them. 

Mr.  CouLLiNG :  Then,  if  I  can  prove  from  other  pas- 
sages that  children  are  brought  into  the  Church  of  Christ 
and  the  covenant  of  God,  this  commission  does  not  shut 
me  out  from  it.  I  think  I  have  removed  the  great  bar- 
rier which  he  has  erected,  for  he  opens  the  gate  him- 
self, and  lets  me  out  foot-loose,  and  says  that  the  com- 
mission does  not  say  a  word  about  children  ;  though  he 
said,  this  morning,  I  never  could  get  away  from  it. 

Another  criticism  that  he  urged,  with  reference  to 
that  commission.  I  do  not  think  that  you  have  exactly 
caught  my  idea  with  reference  to  the  criticism  that  I 
suggested,  from  my  good  brother's  representation  of  the . 
force  of  the  two  participles  that  are  used.  Mark  gives 
the  version  thus  :  "  And  he  said  unto  them,  Gro  into  all 
the  world,  and  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature.  He 
that  believeth  and  is  baptized,"  &c.     Now  the  English 

7 


146  DEBATE    ON    THE 

scholar — the  person  who  has  only  learned  the  English 
languge,  from  reading  that — if  he  were  asked  to  parse 
the  word  believeth,  would  regard  it  probably  as  in  the 
present  tense ;  and  the  following  verb,  baptized,  as  the 
perfect  of  the  indicative  passive.  Therefore,  the  Eng- 
lish version  seems  to  say,  first  you  are  to  believe,  and 
then,  following  as  a  consequence,  you  are  to  be  bap- 
tized :  whereas  the  Greek  authorizes  no  such  construc- 
tion. Now  let  me  read  it  as  the  Greek  gives  it:  •'  He 
that  has  believed,  and  has  been  baptized,  shall  be  saved." 
Not  that  believing  and  baptizing  are  predicated  the  one 
of  the  other,  or  as  one  preceding  the  other ;  but  simply 
that  both  are  required  to  be  performed,  and  then  the 
man  that  continues  faithful  unto  death,  believing  in 
God,  shall  be  saved.  That  is  the  idea.  He  that  has  be- 
lieved, and  he  that  has  been  baptized — no  matter  which 
comes  first :  that  is  not  stated  in  the  text  at  all- — I  mean 
the  Greek  text — while  it  seems  to  be  stated  in  the  Eng- 
lish text.  That  is  the  point  to  which  I  wish  to  call 
attention.  The  idea  which  is  attempted  to  be  conveyed, 
and  which  is  derived  solely  from  the  English  transla- 
tion, has  no  foundation  whatever  in  a  correct  compre- 
hension and  construction  of  the  original. 

Turn,  now,  to  Acts  xxi.  18  and  25  ;  I  wish  to  make 
some  allusion  to  some  remarks  offered  upon  that  subject. 
You  will  recollect  that  I  introduced  this  passage  yester- 
day in  this  connection  ;  I  was  attempting  to  show  that 
it  would  be  one  of  the  most  marvellous  things  in  this 
world,  if  the  children  of  a  whole  nation,  that  from  time 
immemorial,  had  been  in  the  habit  of  having  their  infants 
with  them  in  their  own  church-communion,  should  be 
expelled — it  would  be  the  strangest  thing,  I  say,  that 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  147 

this  should  occur,  and  there  be  no  stir  made  upon  the 
subject.  And  to  prove  that  and  to  show  it,  I  showed 
you  what  a  stir  was  made,  here,  in  Jerusalem,  1  think 
it  was,  but  no  matter  where,  when  it  was  reported  that 
St.  Paul  had  refused  to  comply  with  the  requirements  of 
the  old  Church.  Now,  say  the  apostles  to  him,  in  sub- 
stance, ''  Now,  Paul,  you  will  have  a  terrible  ado  here." 
He  affirmed  that  there  had  been  a  stir  produced  ;  he 
affirmed  that  the  people  were  dissatisfied,  because  St. 
Paul  would  not  comply  with  these  old  requirements  ; 
and  then  the  brother  asks  this  :  "  Did  St.  Paul  consent  to 
or  countenance  any  such  thing  ?  Did  he  do  it  ?"  and 
then  he  quotes  a  passage  found  in  a  different  connection, 
altogether,  and  left  the  impression  upon  your  minds  that 
St.  Paul  did  not  countenance  this  stir.  Now,  just  read 
the  26th  verse  of  this  chapter : 

"  Then,  Paul  took  the  men,  and  the  next  day  purify- 
ing himself  with  them,  entered  into  the  temple,  to  sig- 
nify the  accomplishment  of  the  days  of  purification, 
until  that  an  offering  should  be  offered  for  every  one  of 
them." 

So,  that  so  far  from  St.  Paul  repudiating  it,  the  26th 
verse  confirms  everything  that  I  stated,  and  St.  Paul 
entered  into  their  plan  to  quiet  the  people.  I  mention 
that,  not  because  it  was  material  to  the  purpose  for 
which  I  introduced  it,  as  it  was  fully  met  even  with  his 
criticisms  upon  it ;  but,  just  to  show  you  that  in  the 
effort  to  avoid  that  inference  a  slight  blunder  was  made, 
a  slight  mistake  occurred  ;  the  brother  did  not  read  quite 
far  enough.  Again,  in  that  passage,  that  it  seemed  sur- 
prising that  I  had  forgotten — and  I  think  it  is  a  little 
surprising   that   I   had   forgotten     that   the   baptism   of 


148  DEBATE    ON    THE 

Lydia  is  recorded  in  this  sixteenth  chapter  of  Acts— the 
argument  is  attempted  to  be  adduced  here,  that  these  peo- 
ple who  were  baptized,  this  household  of  Lydia,  were 
adults,  and  the  brother  affirms  positively  that  there  were 
no  infants  there  ;  just  as  positively  as  if  he  had  been 
there  and  seen  Lydia's  family,  and  knew  all  about  it. 
Though,  he  says  he  does  not  know  anything  about  Mr. 
Lydia. 

Mr.  Masse Y  :  I  denied  that  there  was  any  sort  of 
authoritative  evidence,  to  show  that  there  were  infants. 
You  affirmed  that  there  were,  and  it  devolves  upon  yon 
to  prove  it.  You  affirm  a  position,  and  then  require  me 
to  prove  that  it  is  not  so  ;  you  affirm  that  there  were 
infants^  and  then  call  upon  me  to  prove  that  there  were 
not. 

Mr.  CouLLiNG  :  I  knew  he  would  deny  it. 

Mr.  Masse Y  :  Because  you  knew  I  did  not  say  it. 

Mr.  CouLLiNG  :  I  did  not  say  you  did.  I  knew  that 
he  would  deny  it,  and  that  is  all  that  I  said — that  he 
most  positively  denies  it,  most  emphatically  denies  it. 
Now,  if  there  were  no  infants — and  I  suppose  he  would 
be  good  authority  for  that  as  far  as  it  goes — then,  ac- 
cording to  the  text,  what  becomes  of  "  believers  bap- 
tism- .^"  There  were  people  here  baptized  who,  he  says, 
were  not  infants.  They  then  must  have  been  adults,  I 
suppose,  one  of  the  two  ;  and  there  was  then  baptism 
of  adults  without  faith.  Then,  what  becomes  of  his 
main  proposition  ?  Gone  to  the  four  winds  ;  blown  up 
as  high  as  Haman  was  hung  ;  no  doubt  about  that. 
He  affirms  most  positively  that  there  were  no  infants 
there,  and  says  it  devolves  upon  me  to  prove  it.  What 
stronger  proof  will  you  ask  than  what  I  have  already 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  149 

given  ?  Why  does  he  not  say  that  the  Peshito-Syriac 
edition  is  incorrect,  though  made  almost  in  the  very 
days  of  the  apostle,  and  which  says — Lydia,  and  the 
children  of  her  household  were  baptized  ?  Why  does 
not  he,  from  among  all  the  learned  men  who  have  writ- 
ten upon  this  subject,  bring  forward  some  proof  against 
the  accuracy  of  that  translation,  made  at  the  very 
time  when  the  people  understood  something  about  it  ? 
I  have  not  proved  it  I  Why,  that  is  proof,  "  demon- 
stration strong  as  Holy  Writ ;"  that  is  proof  that  is 
irrefragable ;  that  is  a  species  of  proof  that  not  one  of 
the  writers  upon  the  subject  that  I  have  ever  read  (I 
have  not  read  every  one  of  them,  and  would  not  for  a 
pretty  thing) — that  is  proof  that  not  one  of  them  will 
grapple  with.  And  then,  what  of  the  proof  of  the 
obituary  notices  from  the  tombstones  of  little  children  ? 
Let  him  bring  forward  some  supposition  that  will  relieve 
his  "  believer's  baptism  only"  from  the  dilemma  in 
which  he  has  placed  it  by  his  own  interpretation  of 
Lydia's  baptism.  What  is  he  going  to  do  ?  To  sup- 
pose that  those  people  did  believe  ?  If  he  can  put  his 
supposition  in  the  text,  is  it  not  just  as  lawful,  and  a 
little  more  so  with  all  this  evidence,  to  put  my  supposi- 
tion in  there,  .that  there  were  infant  children  ?  And 
although  I  do  not  know  Mr.  Lydia,  nor  Mrs.  Lydia,  ex- 
cept what  this  text  tells  us,  yet  I  know  as  far  as  testi- 
mony goes  that  Lydia  had  children.  "  Oh,  no,"  says  he  ; 
*'  turn  to  the  40th  verse,  and  you  will  find  that  which  is 
proof  positive  against  it." 

"  And  they  went  out  of  the  prison,  and  entered  into 
the  house  of  Lydia  ;  and  when  they  had  seen  the  breth- 
ren, they  comforted  them,  and  departed." 


150  DEBATE    ON    THE 

Who  departed  ?  If  the  brother  had  just  given  him- 
self the  trouble  to  read  a  chapter  or  two  before,  I  will 
tell  you  what  he  would  have  found  out.  He  would 
have  found  out,  that  Paul  and  Luke  and  Silas  were 
travelling  together  ;  and  hence  you  find  he  and  ive  and  I 
used  in  the  whole  context.  When  Paul  and  Silas  and 
Luke  met  with  brother  Timothy,  they  took  him  along 
with  them.  And  then  they  all  went  to  Philippi,  and 
there  went  to  preaching  out  on  the  seashore.  Paul  got 
up  and  preached  a  sermon,  and  delivered  an  exhortation, 
and  G-od  opened  the  heart  of  Lydia,  and  she  received 
the  teachings  of  Paul,  and  Lydia  was  baptized,  and  her 
children  with  her.  And  Lydia  said,  "  If  you  have  judged 
me  to  be  faithful  to  the  Lord,  come  into  my  house 
and  abide  there."  Who  went  into  her  house  ?  Paul, 
Silas,  Luke,  and  Timothy.  Paul,  a  few  evenings  after- 
ward, rebuked  the  spirit  of  divination  which  was  in  a 
young  girl,  and  which  brought  her  masters  much  gain. 
And  when  they  saw  that  the  hope  of  their  gains  was 
gone,  they  caught  Paul  and  Silas,  and  had  them  thrown 
into  prison.  Luke  and  Timothy  were  still  at  the  house 
of  Lydia,  and  when  Paul  and  Silas  got  out  of  prison, 
they  went  to  Sister  Lydia's  house  and  comforted  the 
brethren.  What  brethren  ?  Why,  Luke  and  Timothy, 
who  were  still  staying  there.  Read  this  whole  chapter, 
and  you  will  find  that  this  is  all  so.  I  have  read  it  over 
carefully,  two  or  three  times,  and  I  have  it  all  noted 
down,  here.  They  were  the  brethren  who  were  in  sister 
Lydia's  house.  So  that  that  strong  argument,  which 
nobody  can  meet,  does  not  happen  to  be  an  argument  at 
all  ;  it  is  just  a  slight  mistake,  occurring  from  a  want 
of  examination  of  this  passage  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apos- 
tles.    That  is  about  the  simple  English  of  it. 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  I 

No  positive  argument,  says  he,  can  be  deduced  from 
the  use  of  ohog  and  oUia  ;  and  then  he  turns  in  and 
favors  you  with  a  long  string  of  definitions  of  both  of 
those  words  from  Donnegan  and  G-rove.  Well,  Donne- 
gan  and  G-rove,  according  to  my  hearing,  and  I  think  I 
heard  accurately,  sustained  precisely  the  very  position 
which  I  occupy  upon  this  subject.  And  that  is,  that 
while  oUbg  and  olnia  have  various  meanings,  as  most 
words  have ;  one  of  the  meanings  is,  a  family,  the  chil- 
dren of  a  family.  They  both  sustain  that  position. 
That  is  all  I  want.  That  those  words,  under  different 
circumstances,  may  have  different  meanings,  is  just 
what  is  true  of  every  other  w^ord  ;  and  all  he  says  about 
them  does  not  infringe  upon  the  force  of  my  argument, 
not  a  jot  or  a  tittle.  And  that  these  words  do  carry  ar- 
gumentative force,  I  have  the  pleasure  of  knowing,  from 
the  fact  that  some  of  the  ripest  Greek  scholars  in  Eu- 
rope and  in  America  understand  them  and  argue  from 
them  as,  not  only  having  force,  but  as  having  a  force 
that  I  say  very  few  who  understand  the  argument,  will 
oppose  and  grapple  with.  "  And  they  said,  Believe  on 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  thou  shalt  be  saved  and  thy 
house."  "  And  he  spake  to  him  the  word  of  the  Lord, 
and  to  all  (e^  r^  olda  avrov)  that  were  in  his  house." 
^'  And  he  took  them  the  same  hour  of  the  night  and 
washed  their  stripes  and  was  baptized,  he  and  all 
(ol  dvTov  TTav-eg)  his."  "Thou  shalt  be  saved  (fcat  6 
olKog  gov)  and  thy  house."  Now,  tell  me,  why  that  dif- 
ference in  the  use  of  terms  constantly  recurring  ? 
Wherever  you  find  the  baptism  of  a  household  spoken 
of,  it  is  in  those  terms.  No  force!  No  argument  I  ]s 
that  so  ?     If  these  men  understood  the  language  that 


152  DEBATE  ON  THE 

they  wrote,  did  they  use  this  language  at  haphazard  ? 
And  yet  no  argument  deducible  from  it !  It  is  a  strong 
collateral  argument,  and  I  refer  to  it  simply  as  col- 
lateral. 

I  come  next  to  another  point  that  he  stated.  He 
affirms  that  he  has  shown  that  all  the  cases  to  which  he 
has  referred,  are  cases  of  adult  baptism,  and  nothing 
else.  Now,  I  just  wish  to  submit  that  to  you.  The 
arguments  I  have  urged  are  all  before  you  ;  and  all  that 
he  has  urged  are  before  you.  Now,  has  he  done  that  to 
the  satisfaction  of  this  audience  ?  Has  he  shown  that 
in  every  case  of  baptism  to  which  he  has  referred,  there 
was  nothing  in  the  world  but  adult  baptism  ?  Has  he 
shown  it  in  the  case  of  Lydia's  household,  and  the 
household  of  Stephanas,  and  the  household  of  the  jailor  ? 
Has  he  done  it  ? 

Now  to  another  argument.  He  promised  to  give  us 
history,  as  I  undc^rstood  him,  to  prove  that  none  but 
believers  are  to  be  baptized.  He  started  out  with  that 
proposition ;  he  has  brought  forward  abundance  of  ar- 
guments to  prove  that  believers  ought  to  be  baptized  : 
a  thing  that  nobody  ever  did  doubt.  But  he  has  yet  to 
prove  his  great  proposition  to  which  he  has  committed 
himself,  that  only  believers  are  to  be  baptized.  He 
brings  forward  quotation  after  quotation  from  Church 
history.  I  wish  now  to  refer  you  to  Alosheim,  page  38, 
this  is  one  of  his  Church  histories,  to  prove  that  none 
but  believers  were  to  be  baptized : 

"Nor,  in  the  first  century,  was  the  distinction  made 
between  Christians  of  a  more  or  less  perfect  order,  which 
took  place  afterward.  Whoever  acknowledged  Christ 
as  the  Saviour  of  mankind,  and  made  a  solemn  profes- 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  153 

sion  of  his  confidence  in  him,  was  immediately  baptized 
and  received  into  the  Church." 

Does  he  say  no  others  but  those  were  baptized  and 
received  into  the  Church  ?     No  :  no  such  intimation  : 

"  But  when  the  Cliurch  began  to  flourish,  and  its 
members  to  increase,  it  was  thought  prudent  and  neces- 
sary to  divide  Christians  into  two  orders,  distinguished 
by  the  names  of  believers  and  catechumens.  The  for- 
mer were  those  who  had  been  solemnly  admitted  into 
the  Church  by  baptism,  and,  in  consequence  thereof, 
were  instructed  in  all  the  mysteries  of  religion,  had 
access  to  all  the  parts  of  divine  worship,  and  were  au- 
thorized to  vote  in  the  ecclesiastical  assemblies.  The 
latter  were  such  as  had  not  yet  been  dedicated  to  Grod 
and  Christ  by  baptism,  and  were,  therefore,  neither  ad- 
mitted to  the  public  prayers,  nor  to  the  holy  communion, 
nor  to  the  ecclesiastical  assemblies." 

Then,  all  that  Mosheim  says  here,  everything  about 
it  is,  that  when  adult  persons  wanted  to  get  into  the 
Church,  after  the  first  century,  they  were  required  to 
become  catechumens  before  they  were  to  be  baptized. 
And  a  very  good  reason  for  it.  The  gospel  spread  into 
heathen  lands,  getting  hold  of  men  who  knew  nothing 
of  religion,  Judaism,  or  anything  else ;  and  the  preach- 
ers did  not  introduce  them  immediately  into  the  Church, 
but  made  them  catechumens.  Just  precisely  as  any 
denomination  of  Christians  in  this  land  would  do  at  the 
present  day,  if  they  were  to  go  among  heathen  people. 
They  would  instruct  those  heathen  people  before  they 
admitted  them  to  baptism,  let  them  say  what  they  may, 
or  seem  what  they  may.     That  is  all  natural,  all  right. 

There  is  nothing  here  in  conflict  with  my  opinion,  or  to 

7# 


154  DEBATE    ON    THE 

support  the  "  only  believer's  baptisQi "  that  my  good 
brother  has  been  speaking  of.  Again,  from  page  69  of 
Mosheim,  he  read  the  following : 

"The  sacrament  of  baptism  was  administered  pub- 
licly twice  every  year,  at  the  festivals  of  Easter  and 
Pentecost,  or  Whitsuntide,  either  by  the  bishop,  or,  in 
consequence  of  his  authorization  and  appointment,  by 
the  presbyters.  The  persons  that  were  to  be  baptized, 
after  they  had  repeated  the  Creed,  confessed  and  re- 
nounced their  sins,  and  particularly  the  devil  and  his 
pompous  allurements,  were  immersed  in  water  and  re- 
ceived into  Christ's  kingdom  by  a  solemn  invocation,  of 
Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  according  to  the  express 
command  of  our  blessed  Lord." 

It  does  not  once  say  that  none  others ;  not  one  single 
word  about  it :  silent  as  the  grave  upon  the  very  point, 
the  only  point  of  controversy.  And  yet  this  is  brought 
forward  to  prove  nothing  but  immersion.  From  page 
91  another  quotation  is  made  : 

"  Those  who  were  in  a  penitential  state,  and  those 
also  who  had  not  received  the  sacrament  of  baptism, 
were  not  admitted  to  this  holy  supper  ;  and  it  is  not  dif- 
ficult to  perceive  that  these  exclusions  were  an  intima- 
tion of  what  was  practised  in  the  heathen  mysteries." 

And  further  on : 

"  It  was  also  more  frequently  repeated  in  some 
churches  than  others ;  but  was  considered  in  all  as  of 
the  highest  importance,  and  as  essential  to  salvation  : 
for  which  reason  it  was  even  thought  proper  to  adminis- 
ter it  to  infants.". 

I  suppose  he  is  speaking  of  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's 
Supper. 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  155 

Again,  he  says : 

"  There  were,  twice  a  year,  stated  times  when  bap- 
tism was  administered  to  such  as,  after  a  long  course  of 
trial  and  preparation,  offered  themselves  as  candidates 
for  the  profession  of  Christianity." 

Again  silent :  does  not  say  a  word  ahout  believers 
only.  And  as  I  have  repeated  it  until  1  am  tired  of  say- 
ing it — as  I  have  no  doubt  you  are  all  tired  of  hearing 
it — all  this  proves  very  conclusively  what  never  was 
disputed,  what  is  not  in  debate  at  all,  and  falls  very  far 
short  of  proving  the  only  point  of  controversy  between 
us.  Another  quotation  is  from  Neander,  vol.  i.,  page 
305: 

"We  shall  speak  first  of  baptism.  At  the  beginning, 
when  it  was  important  that  the  Church  should  rapidly 
extend  itself,  those  who  confessed  fheir  belief  in  Jesus 
as  the  Messiah  (among  the  Jews),  or  their  belief  in  one 
Grod,  and  in  Jesus  as  the  Messiah  (among  the  G-entiles), 
were  immediately  baptized,  as  appears  from  the  New 
Testament." 

Well,  who  ever  doubted  that?  And  what  does  it 
prove  ?  What,  I  again  say,  has  never  been  in  contro. 
versy. 

''  This  confession  was  put  into  the  hands  of  the  cate- 
chumens, as  a  document  which  contained  the  essentials 
of  Christianity.  Many  who  had  been  led  to  embrace 
the  faith  after  much  inquiry,  after  consulting  different 
religious  writings,  and  reading  the  Scriptures  for  them- 
selves, of  course  did  not  need  it  to  keep  them  in  the 
knowledge  of  Christianity." 

The  same  thing :  it  utterly  fails  to  prove  the  very 
point  in  controversy.     Again: 


156  DEBATE    ON    THE 

"  Baptism  was  administered  at  first  only  to  adults ; 
as  men  were  accustomed  to  conceive  baptism  and  faith 
as  strictly  connected.  We  have  all  reason  for  not  de- 
riving infant  baptism  from  apostolic  institution  ;  and 
the  recognition  of  it  that  followed  somewhat  later  as 
apostolic  tradition,  serves  to  confirm  this  hypothesis." 

That  is  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Neander.  Now  I  wish  to 
call  your  attention  to  a  few  facts.  Here  is  a  note  here 
in  Latin  (Neander),  and  I  have  a  great  mind  to  give 
you  a  translation  of  it.  But  it  probably  will  not  be 
worth  while,  as  we  will  get  the  same  thing  from  other 
sources.  And  just  in  keeping  with  the  last  quotation, 
were  several  quotations  made  from  Dr.  Howell's  work  on 
Baptism.  Nowhere  is  the  idea  :  here  are  men  who  have 
given  their  opinion  simply  upon  the  subject.  Now,  I 
want  to  bring  you  'some  history.  I  refer  you  to  page 
202  of  Cave's  "Primitive  Christianity:" 

"  From  the  persons  ministering,  we  proceed  to  the 
persons  upon  whom  it  was  conferred,  and  they  were  of 
two  sorts,  infanU  and  adult  persons." 

This  is  an  assertion  of  Mr.  Cave's  ;  let  us  see  how  he 
proves  it : 

"  How  far  the  baptizing  of  infants  is  included  in  our 
Savioufs  institution,  is  not  my  work  to  dispute ;  but, 
certainly,  if  in  controverted  cases  the  constant  practice 
of  the  Church,  and  those  who  immediately  succeeded 
the  apostles,  be  (as  no  man  can  deny  it  is)  the  best  in- 
terpreter of  the  laws  of  Christ,  the  dispute,  one  would 
think,  should  be  at  an  end ;  for  that  it  always  was  the 
custorn  to  receive  the  children  of  Christian  parents  into 
the  Church  by  baptism,  we  have  sufficient  evidence,  for 
the  greatest  part  of  the  most  early  writers,  Irenceus,  Ter- 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.        ,  157 

tttllian^  Origen^  Cyprian^  &c.,  whose  testimonies  I  do 
^  not  produce,  because  I  find  them  collected  by  others, 
and  the  argument  thence  so  forcible  and  conclusive, 
that  the  most  zealous  opponents  of  Infant  Baptism  know 
not  how  to  evade  it. " 

There  is  the  opinion  of  a  man,  not  given  as  this  man's 
(Neander's)  opinion,  without  reference  to  authority,  but 
given  upon  the  authority  of  Irenus,  TertuUian,  Origen, 
Cyprian :  these  are  the  men  who  support  it.  Let  us  go 
on  a  little  farther  : 

"  The  testimony  being  so  clear,  and  not  the  least  shadow 
that  I  know  of,  in  these  times,  of  anything  to  make  against 
it.  There  was,  indeed,  in  Cyprian's  time,  a  controversy 
about  the  baptism  of  infants,  not  ivhether  they  ought  to 
be  baptized  (for  of  that  there  was  no  doubt),  but  con- 
cerning the  time  when  it  was  to  be  administered, 
whether  on  the  second  or  thirds  or  whether,  as  circum- 
cision of  old,  to  be  deferred  till  the  eighth  day.  For  the 
determining  of  which,  Cyprian,  sitting  in  council  with 
sixty-six  bishops,  writes  a  synodical  epistle  to  Fidus,  to 
let  him  know  that  it  was  not  necessary  to  be  deferred 
so  long." 

(And  here  he  quotes  from  Fidus'  letter.) 


MR.  MASSEY'S  FIFTH  ADDRESS. 

Mr.  Massey  :  One  would  have  supposed,  had  he 
arrived  here  just  before  the  close  of  the  gentleman's 
argument,  that  this  (Cave)  was  the  only  Church  history 
that  had  been  presented  here  to-day.  He  speaks  of 
Mosheim,  and  Neander,  and  G-ieseler,  as  giving  their 
opinions,  and  says  :    "  Now  I  want  to  bring  you  some 


158  DEBATE    ON    THE 

history y  It  requires  a  pretty  good  degree  of  faith 
and  charity  to  appreciate  such  an  argument  as  this, 
if  it  may  be  called  an  argument,  without  losing  some 
appreciation  of  the  arguer.  And  then  another  thing 
in  connection  with  these  histories.  These  Church 
histories  are  acknowledged  by  the  Christian  Church 
throughout  the  length  and  breadth  of  the  land,  to  be 
the  most  able  and  faithful  Church  histories  that  have 
ever  been  written.  Now,  Mr.  CouUing  tells  you  that 
they  have  only  spoken  of  adults^  and  argues  that  their 
silence  with  regard  to  infants  justifies  the  conclusion 
that  infants  were  baptized.  Now,  if  infants  were  bap- 
tized^ and  these  men  gave  no  account  of  it,  were  they 
faithful  historians?  Did  they  state  what  took  place? 
They  declare  that  in  the  first,  second,  and  third  centu- 
ries, baptism  was  preceded  by  a  profession  of  faith. 
He  says  this  was  only  in  reference  to  adults.  I  know  it 
is  in  reference  to  adults,  because  infant  baptism  ivas 
unknown  to  the  age.  He  knows  these  historians  state 
all  the  practice  of  the  Church  with  regard  to  the  admin- 
istration of  baptism  ;  and  that  the  reason  why  they  give 
no  account  of  infant  baptism  is,  that  infant  baptism  was 
not  practised.  I  really  pity  the  languishing  cause  that 
requires  such  a  defence.  And  I  felt  for  the  gloomy  fore- 
bodings of  those  who  have  endeavored  to  cheer  by  smiles 
and  bows  and  expressions  of  approbation,  when  they  saw 
their  champion  endeavoring  to  sustain  his  theory  by 
such  sophistry  as  this.  Unless  the  gentleman  is  more 
ignorant  of  Church  history  than  I  could  have  supposed 
him  to  be,  he  knows  that  not  one  single  trace  of  infant 
baptism  can  be  found  earlier  than  the  middle  of  the  sec- 
ond century. 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  159 

With  regard  to  his  criticism  upon  the  commission, 
nothing  more  need  be  said.  If  I  were  to  tell  any  of  you 
to  go  and  bring  me  a  man^  you  would  understand  that 
that  direction  gave  you  no  authority  to  bring  me  a  child, 
I  have  already  shown  you  that  baptism  is  a  positive 
institution,  deriving  all  its  authority  from  the  insti tutor 
himself.  And  when  he  gives  directions  to  baptize  per- 
sons who  give  evidence  that  they  possess  the  qualifica- 
tions he  prescribes,  and  says  nothing  of  others,  and  as 
no  authority  to  baptize  at  all  was  given  until  he  gave  it 
to  his  disciples,  they  have  only  authority  to  baptize 
those  mentioned  ;  none  others.  He  told  them  to  bap- 
tize believers^  and  they  must  follow  his  directions. 

The  gentleman  asks  why  I  have  not  said  anything 
about  the  Peshito-Syriac  edition.  I  suppose  some  of 
you,  my  hearers,  were  as  much  startled  as  I  was  yester- 
day at  the  great  sensitiveness  of  the  gentleman  when  I 
spoke  about  quoting  from  memory.  I  did  not  mean  for 
a  moment  that  the  gentleman  would  misquote  any  por- 
tion of  history  or  any  commentary.  But,  remembering 
that  he  and  I,  as  all  other  men,  are  liable  to  make  mis- 
takes, and  to  misquote  unintentionally  when  quoting 
from  memory,  I  spoke  of  the  importance  of  having  the 
witnesses  present.  And  I  was  rather  surprised  to  find 
the  gentleman  taking  as  a  personal  reflection  what  I 
certainly  did  not  so  intend.  But  what  a  change  has  a 
single  day  produced  !  No  one  need  ask,  "  Upon  what 
food  hath  this  modern  Caesar  fed,  that  he  hath  grown  so 
great  ?"  He  says  he  not  only  saio,  but  actually  "  con- 
versed with  a  man  who  had  had  the  Peshito  edition  in 
his  hand  V  And  then  he  presents  to  you,  as  ''  demon- 
stration strong  as  Holy  Writy^^  this  mere  hearsay  of 


160  DEBATE    ON    THE 

what  is  in  the  Peshito  edition  as  sustaining  his  view 
of  Lydia  and  her  family.  He  gives  it  to  you,  not  even 
as  a  quotation  from  memory^  hut  upon  his  memory 
of  the  say-so  of  some  one  else,  '•  lolio  actually  had  the 
Peshito  edition  in  his  hand,  and  who  talked  ivith  him^ 
Now,  is  this  Peshito  edition  of  any  more  authority 
than  the  original  from  which  it  was  translated  ?  Is  it 
hetter  than  the  translation  of  King  James,  which  has 
been  eulogized  as  the  best  translation  of  the  word  of 
God  extant?  He  not  only  brings  you  here  hearsay 
testimony,  differing  entirely  from  both  the  Greek 
and  English  Scriptures,  but  pronounces  it  ''  demon- 
stration strong  as  Holy  Writ !  I  /"  He  says  that 
some  of  the  ripest  Grreek  scholars  in  Enrope  and 
America  understand  olKog  and  oUta  as  he  does.  'Well, 
I  do  not  know  who  they  are.  He  has  affirmed  this  as  a 
fact ;  but  has  not  brought  any  testimony  to  prove  it. 
He  has  simply  affirmed  it.  He  talks  a  great  deal  about 
proof  and  not  affirmation  ;  and  yet  he  is  very  fluent  in 
''^affirmations''^  himself.  I  cannot  meet  his  "ripe 
scholars,"  for  they  are  not  here  ;  he  has  not  even  given 
me  their  names.  When  I  present  testimony,  I  have  it 
here  for  him  to  examine.  He  rather  complains  of  my 
bringing  these  "  tomes  of  books,"  as  he  calls  them  ; 
these  commentaries  and  authorities.  Here  are  passages 
of  Scripture  about  which  he  and  I  differ.  Who  are  to 
determine  which  of  us  is  right  ?  I  say  a  passage  means 
one  thing,  and  I  bring  all  the  light  I  can  from  the  Word 
of  Grod  to  sustain  my  construction  of  it.  He  says  it 
means  another  thing,  and  brings  forward  what  he  can  to 
sustain  his  construction  of  it.  When  we  still  differ  as 
to  its  teaching,  I   bring  my   witnesses,  and  show  that 


SUBJECTS     OF     BAPTISM.  161 

these  able  scholars  and  theologians — Pedobaptists  like 
himself — say  that  /  am  right.  Suppose  two  of  you  go 
before  arbitrators  to  settle  some  question  between  you ; 
one  of  you  states  one  thing,  and  the  other  another. 
The  arbitrators  say,  "  We  cannot  decide  between  you  ; 
you  must  bring  your  testimony."  When  it  is  brought, 
the  decision  of  the  question  will  be  determined  by  the 
preponderance  of  that  evidence.  If  this  question  be 
settled  by  the  weight  of  testimony,  either  Divine  or  hu- 
man, infant  baptism  is  gone  to  the  winds. 

Having  noticed  the  gentleman's  last  address,  I  pro- 
ceed with  the  arguments  I  was  presenting. 

Infant  baptism  originated  in  and  is  sustained  by  erro- 
neous vieivs  of  baptismal  efficacy.  This  reminds  me  of 
another  of  the  gentleman's  authorities,  which  I  will  no- 
tice before  proceeding.  The  gentleman  introduced  Tay- 
lor ;  a  most  ultra  advocate  of  infant  baptism,  and  quotes 
from  him  different  "obituary  notices"  from  the  tomb- 
stones in  the  Catacombs  at  Rome.  The  earliest  date  I 
see  given  to  any  of  them,  is  367.  Suppose  it  to  be  true, 
that  those  relics  of  papal  superstition  were  all  genuine 
records  ;  What  of  it  ?  I  have  shown  you,  from  the  best 
ecclesiastical  histories  known  to  the  world,  that  infant 
baptism  was  introduced  among  other  corruptions  of  the 
Church,  in  the  third  century.  And  he  gives  you  what 
he  terms  obituary  notices  from  tombstones,  made  after 
that  time.  That  is  a  most  beautiful  mode,  indeed,  of 
showing  what  the  Apostolic  practice  was.  Is  that  the 
Scriptural  authority  of  the  gentleman  ? 

Having  shown  you  ivhen  infant  baptism  originated, 
I  will  now  show  you  ivhy  and  how  it  originated.  Here 
is  the  Encyclopedia  Americana,  a  work  of  no  denomi- 


162  DEBATE    ON    THE 

national  character,  but  designed  to  give  information 
upon  almost  every  question  of  history  in  the  past  ages 
of  the  world.  On  page  558,  vol.  i.,  we  find  this  piece 
of  history,  which  I  hope,  with  others  that  I  shall  give, 
will  even  satisfy  the  gentleman  upon  a  point  upon  which 
he  seems  so  poorly  informed,  and  upon  which  he  calls 
so  loudly  for  information,  viz.,  that  professed  believers 
only  were  baptized  in  the  first  centuries  : 

''In  the  first  centuries  of  the  Christian  era,  when, 
generally  speaking,  adults  only  joined  the  new  sect,  the 
converted  [catechumens,  q.  v.]  were  diligently  instructed ; 
the  power  of  this  sacrament  to  procure  perfect  remission 
of  sins  was  taught,  and,  while  some  converts  delayed 
their  baptism  from  a  feeling  of  sinfulness  not  yet  re- 
moved, others  did  the  same  from  the  wish  to  gratify 
corrupt  desires  a  little  longer,  and  to  have  their  sins  for- 
given all  at  once.  But  the  doctrine  of  St.  Augustine, 
that  the  unbaptized  were  irrevocably  damned,  changed 
all  this  delay  into  haste,  and  made  the  baptism  of  chil- 
dren general." 

That  was  what  originated  infant  baptism :  the  idea 
that  the  unbaptized  would  be  damned,  led  them  to  bap- 
tize children.     Neander,  vol.  i.,  page  313,  says: 

"  The  error  became  more  firmly  established,  that 
without  external  baptism  no  one  could  be  delivered  from 
that  inherent  guilt — could  be  saved  from  the  everlasting 
punishment  that  threatened  him,  or  raised  to  eternal 
life  ;  and  when  the  notion  of  a  magical  influence,  a 
charm  connected  with  the  sacraments,  continually  gained 
ground,  the  theory  was  finally  evolved  of  the  uncondi- 
tional necessity  of  infant  baptism^ 

When  this  doctrine  gained  ground — that  baptism  and 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  163 

salvation  were  connected,  that  no  unbaptized  person 
could  be  saved — they  evolved  the  theory  of  the  neces- 
sity of  infant  baptism.  Kitto's  "  Cyclopaedia  of  Biblical 
Literature,"  page  287,  says  : 

"Infant  Baptism  was  established  by  neither  Christ 
nor  the  apostles.  In  all  places  where  we  find  the  neces- 
sity of  baptism  notified,  either  in  a  dogmatic  or  histor- 
ical point  of  view,  it  is  evident  that  it  was  only  meant 
for  those  who  were  capable  of  comprehending  the  word 
preached,  and  of  being  converted  to  Christ  by  an  act  of 
their  own  will.  A  pretty  sure  testimony  of  its  non-exis- 
tence in  the  apostolic  age  may  be  inferred  from  1  Cor. 
vii.  14,  since  Paul  would  certainly  have  referred  to  the 
baptism  of  children  for  their  holiness. — (Comp.  Neander, 
Hist,  of  the  Planting,  &o.,  vol.  i.,  page  206.)  But  even 
in  later  times,  several  teachers  of  the  Church,  such 
as  Tertullian  (De  Bapt.  18)  and  others,  reject  this  cus- 
tom ;  indeed,  his  Church  in  general  (that  of  North 
Africa)  adhered  longer  than  others  to  the  primitive  reg- 
ulations. Even  when  baptism  of  children  was  already 
theoretically  derived  from  the  apostles,  its  practice  was 
nevertheless  for  a  long  time  confined  to  a  maturer  age." 

Who  can  possibly  desire  clearer  testimony  upon  this 
point  ?  The  same  erroneous  views  arose  as  to  giving 
the  ''  Lord's  Supper"  to  infants.  (My  brother  inadver- 
tently read  some  testimony  I  had  noted  upon  that  point, 
and  therefore  I  need  not  read  it.)  This  practice  was 
continued  up  to  the  twelfth  century,  and  then  it  was 
abolished  because  they  had  the  idea  of  a  peculiar  eiFi- 
cacy  connected  with  this  sacrament,  and  they  feared 
that  infants  would  waste  some  of  the  Eucharist  as  it 
was  presented    to    them.      And    for   this   reason   they 


164  DEBATE    ON    THE 

introduced  the  custom  of  dipping  the  bread  into  the 
wine  and  giving  it  to  the  baptized  infants.  Finally, 
they  abolished  infant  communion  altogether.     . 

Again  :  Infant  baptism  rests  upon  the  doctrine  of  ''  bap- 
tismal regeneration^''''  and  casts  suspicion  upon  the  doc- 
trine of  infant  salvation.  Infant  salvation  is  a  doctrine 
dear  to  every  Baptist  heart.  We  cannot  look  with  toler- 
ation, even,  upon  anything  that  casts  suspicion  or  doubt 
upon  the  salvation  of  those  who  die  in  infancy.  And 
is  it  not  marvellous  that  those  who  manifest  so  much 
concern  about  ''  the  dear  little  children,"  are  daily,  by 
their  doctrines  and  practices,  casting  suspicion  upon  this 
very  doctrine  ?  They  are  saying,  virtually^  "The  in- 
fant is  not  safe  where  Jesus  Christ  has  placed  it,  and 
ive  must  perform  some  act  upon  it  before  salvation  can 
be  secured  to  it."  To  show  that  my  construction  of 
their  doctrine  and  practice  is  correct,  I  will  begin  at  the 
fountain  liead^  and  trace  infant  baptism  along  in  its 
resjular  order.  I  will  read  first  from  the  "  Grolden  Man- 
ual,"  a  Roman  Catholic  ritual,  showing  the  manner  of 
administering  the  rite  of  baptism  in  that  Church.  On 
page  553  we  read  : 

"  The  moment  having  arrived  in  which  another  hu- 
man being  is  to  become  a  child  of  G-od  and  a  member 
of  the  body  of  Christ,  the  priest,  to  denote  that  sorrow 
is  about  to  be  changed  into  joy,  changes  his  stole,  and 
instead  of  the  violet,  puts  on  a  white  one. 

"  Then  follows  the  profession  of  faith,  after  which  the 
sacrament  of  regeneration  is  thus  administered :  while 
the  godfather  and  godmother  both  hold  or  touch  their  god- 
child, the  priest  pours  the  baptismal  water  on  his  head 
three  times  in  the  form  of  a  cross,  repeating  the  sacra- 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  165 

mental  words  in  such  manner,  that  the  three  pourings 
of  the  water  concur  with  the  pronouncing  of  the  three 
names  of  the  Divine  Persons.  The  water  is  poured  three 
times,  while  the  words  are  pronounced  but  once,  to  show 
that  the  Three  Persons  unite  in  the  reo^eneration  of  man 

o 

in  holy  baptism." 

At  the  renewal  of  the  vows  by  the  person  who  has 
been  baptized,  this  is  the  prayer  to  be  offered  (p.  564)  : 

"Above  all,  I  thank  Thee  for  this  grace  of  holy  Bap- 
tism, which  hath  preserved  and  sanctified  in  me  all  thy 
gifts,  and  surpasseth  man's  understanding.  By  baptism  I 
was  admitted  into  the  bosom  of  the  Church  :  I  was  made 
thy  child  :  the  gates  of  heaven  were  opened  unto  me." 

Who  denies  that  baptismal  regeneration  is  taught 
there  ? 

I  now  invite  your  attention  to  the  Prayer-Book  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  page  105  : 

"  Almighty  and  immortal  G-od,  the  aid  of  all  who 
need,  the  helper  of  all  who  flee  to  thee  for  succor,  the 
life  of  those  who  believe,  and  the  resurrection  of  the 
dead  :  we  call  upon  thee  for  this  infant,  that  he,  coming 
to  thy  holy  Baptism,  may  receive  remission  of  sin,  by 
spiritual  regeneration." 

Page  107: 

"  Seeing  now,  dearly  beloved  brethren,  that  this  child 
is  regenerate,  and  grafted  into  the  body  of  Christ's 
Church,  let  us  give  thanks  unto  Almighty  Grod  for  these 
benefits,  and  with  one  accord  make  our  prayers  unto 
him  that  this  child  may  lead  the  rest  of  his  life  accord- 
ing to  this  beginning." 

Page  115  : 

^^ Question.  Who  gave  you  this  name? 


166  DEBATE    ON    THE 

^^Ansiver.  My  sponsors  in  Baptism ;  wherein  I  was 
made  a  member  of  Christ,  the  child  of  Grod,  and  an  in- 
heritor of  the  Kingdom  of  heaven." 

Now,  I  ask  if  the  doctrine  of  baptismal  regeneration 
can  be  more  plainly  taught  than  it  is  taught  in  both  of 
these  works  ?  To  show  you  that  I  give  a  correct  con- 
struction of  this  language,  I  invite  your  attention  to  a 
work  called  "  Mercy  to  Babes."  It  is  written  by  William 
Adams,  Presbyter  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church, 
in  the  diocese  of  Wisconsin.  On  page  68  he  says,  in 
reference  to  those  passages  which  I  have  quoted  : 

"  But  the  reader  will  say,  Who  believes  them  as  they 
stand,  without  any  salvo,  in  the  plain,  evident  sense  of 
them  ?  Who  believes  that  baptism  is  for  the  remission  of 
sins  ?  Who  believes  that  it  is  a  saving  ordinance  ?  Who 
believes  that  we  are  buried  with  him  by  baptism ;  or, 
that  therein  we  are  born  of  water  and  the  Spirit  ? 

"  The  reader  will  remember  that  I  am  a  clergyman 
of  the  Episcopal  Church,  and  that  I  come  before  him  in 
no  disguise  of  affected  candor,  word,  liberality,  or  monk- 
meekness,  but  as  what  I  am,  a  clergyman  of  the  Church, 
and  as  such  I  say  I  do.  I  say,  moreover,  that  it  would 
seem  by  the  next  paragraph,  that,  as  a  clergyman  of 
the  Church,  I  must  be  either  very  dishonest,  very  stu- 
pid, or  very  much  influenced  by  prejudice,  if  I  do  not, 
owing  to  the  book  we  use,  take  these  in  the  literal  and 
manifest  sense. 

*'  When  I  catechize  children,  I  ask  them,  '  Who  gave 
you  your  name  ?'  and  they  reply,  '  My  sponsors  in 
baptism,  wherein  I  was  made  a  member  of  Christ,  a 
child  of  God,  and  an  inheritor  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven.' 
An  answer  manifestly  consistent  with  the  literal  sense 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  167 

of  these  texts :  manifestlj  inconsistent  with  the  other 
notions.  In  the  service  for  baptism,  of  infants  or  adults, 
after  baptism,  I  declare  to  them,  that  they  '  are  now- 
born  again,  and  made  heirs  of  everlasting  life.'  Or,  in 
that  of  adults,  that  '  these  persons  are  regenerate,  and 
grafted  into  the  body  of  Christ's  Church.'  In  a  solemn 
prayer  before  the  whole  congregation,  I  implore  God  to 
give  the  holy  Spirit,  '  that  these  persons,  being  born 
again  and  made  heirs  of  everlasting  salvation,  may  con- 
tinue his  servants.'  i\.nd  likewise  I  apply  most  plainly 
the  passage  in  St.  Peter,  asserting  '  baptism  to  be  a  sav- 
ing ordinance.'  And  lastly,  in  the  solemn  Creed,  in 
which  both  minister  and  people,  with  one  voice  together, 
confess  upon  the  days  of  communion,  I  plainly  declare 
myself  to  believe  '  in  one  baptism  for  the  remission  of 
sins.' " 

On  page  70,  he  says  : 

"  This  is  the  case  with  the  twelve  hundred  clergy  of 
the  Church  in  this  country :  the  eighteen  thousand  of 
the  English  Church.  And  this,  I  will  say,  before  Lu- 
ther was,  was  the  opinion  of  the  Church  from  Christ 
downward  ;  and  more  than  this,  the  ordinary  common- 
sense  man,  when  he  comes  to  think  of  it,  will  see   is 

the  plain  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures The  doctrine, 

then,  w^hich  I  say,  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures  upon 
this  matter,  and  most  plainly  the  doctrine  of  the  texts 
that  I  have  quoted,  is  this :  that  in  baptism  received 
upon  repentance  with  living  faith,  we  '  are  born  of  water 
and  the  Spirit.'  And  this  embraces  the  following  con- 
sequences :  first,  the  remission  of  sins ;  second,  the  be- 
ing introduced  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  that  is,  the 
Church  of   G-od ;    third,   the  gift  of  sufficient  grace  ; 


168  DEBATE    ON    THE 

fourth,  the  dwelling  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  us  ;  fifth,  the 
mystical  union  of  Christ  our  Lord  with  man,  whereby 
we  are  made  partakers  of  his  life  and  resurrection — 
power;  and  sixth,  that  the  baptized  are  in  the  commu- 
nion of  saints,  having  a  participation  in  all  the  prayers 
and  spiritual  blessings  of  the  holy  on  earth  and  the  holy 
departed,  and  are  also  under  the  immediate  guardian- 
ship and  care  of  the  holy  angels,  whereby  he  ministers 
to  them  that  love  him. 

"  All  these  gifts  are  to  him  who,  being  of  mature 
years,  received  baptism  in  faith ;  or,  to  the  helpless  and 
innocent  babe,  gifts  conveyed  through  God's  grace,  by 
his  sacrament  of  baptism.  If  this  be  a  true  statement, 
are  there  not  reasons  enough  for  the  baptism  of  infants, 
as  well  as  those  of  maturer  years?  Is  it  not  sufficiently 
manifest,  that  the  forgetting  these  truths  is  the  reason 
why  infants  are  not  baptized  ?" 

On  page  139,  he  says  : 

"  Now,  although  actual  guilt  and  actual  stain  be  not 
in  infants,  still  there  is  a  stain  of  nature,  and  this  may 
be  blotted  out,  this  may  be  cleansed,  this  may  be  washed 
in  Christ^s  blood.  And  this  being  remitted  or  blotted 
out,  the  term  remission  is  truly  and  really  applied  to 
infants  who  have  not  committed  actual  sin.  Infants, 
then,  are  baptized  for  the  remission  of  original  sin,  that 
that  they  may  be  washed  in  the  blood  of  Christ,  that 
being  born  the  children  of  wrath,  they  may  be  made 
the  children  of  grace." 

I  could  read  you  similar  extracts  from  various  other 
pages,  but  I  fear  my  time  will  expire  before  I  bring  this 
argument  to  a  conclusion.  I  have  shown  you  that  thi§ 
is  the  doctrine  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  and  of 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  169 

the  Episcopal  Church.  I  now  present  you  a  work  called 
"  Doctrinal  Tracts,^^  "  published  by  order  of  the  G-en- 
eral  Conference :"  a  Methodist  publication,  from  which 
I  will  show  you  that  the  same  doctrine  is  taught  by 
Methodists,  In  this  work  is  a  treatise  written  by 
John  "Wesley,  the  founder  of  the  "  Methodist  Society. "^^ 
It  is  now  published  by  the  "  General  Conference  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,''''  in  a  volume  of  tracts 
setting  forth  their  doctrines  for  the  instruction  of  their 
own  people.  I  will  read  from  page  246  of  this  treatise 
by  the  father  of  Methodism : 

"  What  are  the  benefits  we  receive  by  baptism?  is 
the  next  point  to  be  considered.  And  the  first  of  these 
is,  the  washing  away  the  guilt  of  original  sin  by  the 
application  of  the  m^erits  of  Christ's  death.  That  we 
are  all  born  under  the  guilt  of  Adam's  sin,  and  that  all 
sin  deserves  eternal  misery,  was  the  unanimous  sense  of 
the  ancient  Church,  as  it  is  expressed  in  the  Ninth  Ar- 
ticle of  our  own." 

This  was  the  Episcopal  Church :  the  Methodists  have 
now  adopted  this  v^ork,  and  it  becomes  their  doctrine. 

"  And  the  Scripture  plainly  asserts  that  we  were 
'  shapen  in  iniquity,  and  in  sin  did  our  mother  conceive 
us ;'  that  '  we  were  all  by  nature  children  of  wrath,  and 
dead  in  trespasses  and  sins  ;'  that  '  in  Adam  all  die  ;' 
that  '  by  one  man's  disobedience  all  were  made  sinners  ;' 
that  '  by  one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world,  and  death 
by  sin :  which  came  upon  all  men,  because  all  had 
sinned.'  This  plainly  includes  infants,  for  they  too  die  ; 
therefore  they  have  sinned,  but  not  by  actual  sin  ;  there- 
fore by  original ;  else  what  need  have  they  of  the  death 
of  Christ  ?     Yea  :   '  death  reigned  from  Adam  to  Moses, 

8 


170  DEBATE    ON    THE 

even  over  those  who  had  not  sinned  "  actually"  accord- 
ing to  the  similitude  of  Adam's  transgression.'  This, 
which  can  relate  to  infants  only,  is  a  clear  proof  that 
the  whole  race  of  mankind  are  obnoxious  both  to  the 
guilt  and  punishment  of  Adam's  transgression.  But, 
*as  by  the  offence  of  one,  judgment  came  upon  all  men 
to  condemnation  ;  so  by  the  righteousness  of  one,  the 
free  gift  came  upon  all  men  to  justification  of  life.'  And 
the  virtues  of  this  free  gift,  the  merits  of  Christ's  life 
and  death,  are  applied  to  us  in  baptism.  'He  gave  him- 
self for  the  Church,  that  he  might  sanctify  and  cleanse 
it  with  the  washing  of  water  by  the  word,'  Eph.  v.  25, 
26  :  namely,  in  baptism,  the  ordinary  instrument  of  our 
justification.  Agreeably  to  this,  our  Church  prays  in 
the  baptismal  office,  that  the  person  to  be  baptized  may 
be  '  washed  and  sanctified  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  and,  be- 
ing delivered  from  God's  wrath,  receive  remission  of 
sins,  and  enjoy  the  everlasting  benediction  of  his  heav- 
enly w^ashing;'  and  declares  in  the  rubric  at  the  end  of 
the  office,  '  It  is  certain,  by  God's  word,  that  children 
who  are  baptized,  dying  before  they  comm.it  actual  sin, 
are  saved.'  And  this  is  agreeable  to  the  unanimous 
judgment  of  all  the  ancient  fathers.  By  baptism  we 
enter  into  covenant  with  God  ;  into  that  everlasting 
covenant  which  he  hath  commanded  forever." 

What  becomes  of  2/?zbaptized  infants,  "  dying  before 
they  commit  actual  sin  ?"     Are  they  not  saved? 

On  page  248  he  says : 

"  By  baptism  w^e  are  admitted  into  the  Church,  and 
consequently  made  members  of  Christ,  its  head.  The 
Jews  were  admitted  into  the  Church  by  circumcision, 
so  are  the  Christians  by  baptism.     For  '  as  many  as  are 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  l7l 

baptized  into  Christ,'  in  his  name,  '  have'  thereby  '  put 
on  Christ,'  G-al.  iii.  27 ;  that  is,  are  mystically  united 
to  Christ,  and  made  one  with  him.  For  '  by  one  Spirit 
we  are  all  baptized  into  one  body,'  1  Cor.  xii.  J  3, 
namely,  the  Church,  '  the  body  of  Christ,'  Eph.  iv.  12. 
From  which  spiritual,  vital  union  with  him  proceeds 
the  influence  of  his  grace  on  those  that  are  baptized  :  as 
from  our  union  with  the  Church,  a  share  in  all  its  priv- 
ileges, and  in  all  the  promises  Christ  has  made  to  it." 

"  By  baptism,  we  who  were  '  by  nature  children  of 
wrath,'  are  made  the  children  of  G-od.  And  this  re- 
generation which  our  Church  in  so  many  places  ascribes 
to  baptism,  is  more  than  barely  being  admitted  into  the 
Church,  though  commonly  connected  therewith  ;  being 
'  grafted  into  the  body  of  Christ's  Church,  we  are  made 
the  children  of  God  by  adoption  and  grace.'  This  is 
grounded  on  the  plain  words  of  our  Lord.  '  Except  a 
man  be  born  again  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  can- 
not enter  into  the  kingdom  of  Grod.'  John  iii.  5.  By 
w^ater,  then,  as  a  means,  the  water  of  baptism,  we  are 
regenerated  or  born  again  ;  whence  it  is  also  called  by 
the  apostle,  '  the  washing  of  regeneration,' "  Page  250. 
"  In  all  ages  the  outward  baptism  is  a  means  of  the 
inward."  P.  251.  "  If  infants  are  guilty  of  original 
sin,  then  they  are  proper  subjects  of  baptism  ;  seeing, 
in  the  ordinary  way,  they  cannot  be  saved,  unless  this 
be  washed  away  by  baptism." 

If  the  doctrine  of  baptismal  regeneration  was  ever 
more  plainly  taught  by  any  being  on  God's  earth,  I 
have  never  seen  it.  I  now  present  you  a  work  upon 
the  subject  of  baptism,  by  Thomas  0.  Summers,  pub- 
lished   by    John   Early   for   the    "  Methodist    Church 


172  DEBATE    ON    THE 

South."     I  am  bringing  the  gentleman  directly  home — 
tracing'  him  to  his  very  door.     On  page  48,  he  says : 

*'  What  if  the  thought  of  your  pious  concern  for 
them,  even  while  they  were  hanging  upon  the  breast, 
should  in  after  life,  rouse  their  moral  sense,  and  quicken 
them  into  religious  feeling,  and  lead  to  their  salvation, 
are  you  quite  sure  that  their  baptism  would  have 
nothing  to  do  with  their  salvation  ?  Are  you  indeed 
certain  that  they  would  be  saved  without  it  ?" 

Does  that  cast  no  suspicion  upon  the  doctrine  of  infant 
salvation  ?     On  page  155,  he  says  : 

''  Baptism  ratifies  our  title  to  the  covenant  blessings 
which  it  symbolizes,  and  pledges  our  discharge  of  cor- 
responding obligation.  The  federal  character  of  the 
ordinance  implies  this.  It  is  not  merely  a  sign  to  denote 
the  blessings  and  obligations  of  the  covenant,  but  also 
a  signum  confirmans,  a  seal  or  pledge  confirming  to  us 
the  bestovvment  of  the  former,  and  binding  us  to  the 
performance  of  the  latter.  #  #  *  #  ^  Everything, 
therefore,  necessary  to  our  salvation,  and  especially  sanc- 
tifying grace,  is  pledged  to  us  on  the  part  of  Grod  in  this 
covenant ;  and  baptism  is  a  pledge  by  which  it  is 
guaranteed  to  us." 

Suppose  an  infant  is  7iot  baptized  ;  then,  according  to 
this  doctrine,  he  has  no  guarantee  of  the  blessings  of 
this  covenant.  Mr.  Wesley  says  that  his  Church  holds 
that  baptized  infants,  dying  in  infancy,  are  saved. 
Does  not  that  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  w?^baptized 
infants  are  not  saved?  Who  dees  not  see  that  such 
doctrines  cast  suspicion  upon  the  doctrine  of  infant  sal- 
vation ?  This  erroneous,  I  may  say,  superstitious  doc- 
trine— the  doctrine  that  the  unbaptized  will  be  irrevoca- 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  173 

bly  lost,  is  the  vef'p  source  from  which  infant  baptism 

sprung-,  and  the  verj/  foundation  upon  which  it  stands. 

[Time  expired.] 


MR.  COULLING'S  FIFTH  REPLY. 

Mr.  CouLLiNG  :  I  was  in  the  midst  of  an  argument, 
which  I  had  not  concluded,  when  my  time  expired.  I 
referred  to  some  testimonies  that  had  been  offered  here, 
and  said  they  were  the  opinions  of  those  several  writers. 
For  instance,  Mosheim,  in  the  place  quoted  from,  is  not 
giving  history,  but  his  ideas  of  what  he  has  got  from 
history.  Do  you  know  how  a  man  writes  history  ?  He 
sits  down  and  examines  all  the  fragmentary  matter  he 
can  get,  in  every  possible  shape,  from  every  possible 
source.  He  gets  all  the  information  he  can,  and  then 
sits  down  and  writes  his  own  views.  Take  up  Hume's 
History  of  England,  and  then  Macaulay's  History  of 
England,  and  see  what  a  different  representation  these 
men  make  of  identically  the  same  transactions,  and  you 
will  be  struck  with  the  most  profound  astonishment. 
A  man  will  take  up  all  the  fragments  he  can  find  from 
every  source,  as  Mosheim  did,  and  then  he  will  sit  down 
and  write  his  own  views  of  the  matter.  That  is  what  I 
mean.  Now,  I  read  you  from  Cane's  history,  and  I  said 
I  will  read  you  history,  because  he  quotes  from  those 
old  writers.  It  was  a  fact  of  history  that  Cyprian  called 
a  synod  of  sixty-six  bishops,  to  decide  that  ever  since 
the  apostles,  infants  had  been  baptized.  That  is  not 
Cane's  opinion,  but  history.  But  Mosheim  gives  his 
opinion.     The  gentleman  says  these  men  were  giving 


174  DEBATE    ON    THE 

the  whole  account  of  the  history  of  baptism — that 
Mosheim  gives  the  whole  of  it ;  and  I  can  find  passage 
after  passage  in  Mosheim,  directly  to  the  point,  so  far  as 
opinion  is  concerned,  that  from  the  time  of  the  apostles 
to  this  time,  the  baptism  of  children  has  been  practised 
in  the  Church. 

Mr.  Massey  :  T  defy  you  to  find  one  such  passage  ! 

Mr.  CouLLiNG  :  Probably  no  historian  is  more  clear 
upon  the  subject. 

Mr.  Massey  :  Just  shoiv  it,  then  ! 

Mr.  C CULLING  :  I  have  no  time,  now. 

Mr.  Massey  :  Then  take  two  hours  more. 

Mr.  CouLLiNG  :  No,  sir  ;  I  will  take  it  all  back,  for  I 
do  not  want  it.  Take  this  history  I  have  brought  here  ; 
according  to  this  history,  from  the  days  of  the  apostles, 
the  baptism  of  children  was  always  practised  in  the 
Church.  Let  me  show  how.  Cyprian,  sitting  in  coun- 
cil with  sixty-six  bishops,  writes  a  synodical  letter  to 
Fidus. 

Mr.  Massey  :  At  what  period  was  that  ? 

Mr.  CouLLiNG  :  I  do  not  recollect  the  date. 

Mr.  Massey  :  I  would  like  to  know  at  what  time  this 
council  was  held. 

Mr.  CouLLiNG  :  I  don't  know ;  I  cannot  tell.  Cyprian 
writes  a  synodical  letter  to  Fidus-^ 

''  to  let  him  know  that  it  was  not  necessary  to  be 

deferred  so  long  [baptism,  until  the  eighth  day],  and 
that  it  was  their  universal  judgment  and  resolution  that 
the  mercy  and  grace  of  Grod  was  not  to  be  denied  to  any, 
though  as  soon  as  he  was  born ;  concluding  that  it  was 
the  sentence  of  the  council  that  none  could  be  forbidden 
baptism  and  the  grace  of  G-od,  which,  as  it  was  to  be 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  175 

observed  and  retained  toward  all  men,  so  much  more 
toward  infants  and  new-horn  children.  And  that  this 
sentence  of  theirs  was  no  novel  doctrine,  St.  Augustine 
assures  us,  where  speaking  concerning  this  synodical 
determination,  he  tells  us  that  in  this  Cyprian  did  not 
make  any  new  decree,  but  kept  the  faith  of  the  Church 
most  firm  and  true. 

''  I  shall  only  take  notice  of  one  place  more  out  of 
Cyprian^  which  methinks  evidently  makes  for  this  pur- 
pose, when  describing  the  great  wickedness  and  miser- 
able condition  of  the  lapsed^  such  as,  to  avoid  persecu- 
tion, had  done  sacrifice  to  the  idols,  he  urges  this  as 
one  of  the  last  and  highest  aggravations,  that  by  their 
apostasie  their  infants  and  children  were  exposed  to 
ruine,  and  had  lost  that  ivhich  they  had  obtained  at  their 
first  coming'  into  the  worldP 

My  friend  turned  to  page  444  of  Riddle's  "  Christian 
Antiquities,"  and  read  an  extract.  I  will  just  read  on  a 
little  : 

''  It  appears,  by  the  testimony  of  the  earliest  Chris- 
tian writers,  that  the  Church  at  first  regarded  all  per- 
sons, without  any  restriction  as  to  nation,  sex,  or  age^ 
as  capable  of  baptism.  And  it  is  evident  that  children 
were  not  excluded"  from  a  participation  in  this  rite,  from 
a  celebrated  passage  of  Irenseus,  as  well  as  from  allu- 
sions to  the  prevailing  practice  of  the  Church  in  the 
writings  of  Tertullian  (who  disapproved  of  infant  bap- 
tism) and  Cyprian,  as  well  as  from  the  controversy 
which  arose  on  the  subject  in  the  African  Church.  But, 
although  from  a  very  early  period  high  notions  were  en- 
tertained respecting  the  supernatural  powers  and  efficacy 
of  baptism,  and  this  sacrament  was  supposed  to  imprint 


176  DEBATE    ON    THE 

an  indelible  character  upon  the  soul,  the  Church  did  not 
lose  sight  of  its  moral  tendency  and  virtue,  or  cease  to 
regard  it  as  an  important  branch  of  discipline.  And, 
accordingly,  the  standing  rule  of  baptizing  all  appli- 
cants was  subject  to  certain  limitations  and  exceptions." 

And  he  goes  on  here  and  excepts  idiots  and  dead  per- 
sons, and  some  other  characters.  There  is  testimony 
upon  the  subject,  of  'just  precisely  the  same  character 
which  has  been  brought  here  by  my  friend :  directly  at 
issue  with  what  he  has  read,  except  that  his  authorities 
simply  express  unsupported  opinion,  while  this  man 
brings  Cyprian,  TertuUian,  and  others,  to  support  the 
truth  of  what  he  says.  Again,  he  says  that  I  complained 
of  him  that  he  did  not  bring  forward  anything  but  proof 
of  adult  baptism.  He  says  he  cannot  do  it,  because 
there  was  no  other  sort  of  baptism.  Just  the  same  as- 
sumption of  the  thing  to  be  proved  that  I  complained  of 
yesterday.  And  then  he  reads  this  from  one  man,  and 
that  from  another,  and  that  from  another,  while  the  only 
way  to  get  at  what  they  really  mean  is  to  read  all  that 
they  say  upon  the  subject,  which  would  take  ten  times 
as  long  as  you  would  sit  here  and  listen.  It  is  just  as 
impossible  to  get  at  all  that  a  man  says  upon  a  subject  by 
reading  a  single  paragraph,  as  it  is  to  read  a  whole  book 
through  by  reading  one  passage  from  it.  He  read  the 
following  from  the  "  Encyclopssdia  Americana  :" 

"  In  the  first  centuries  of  the  Christian  era,  when, 
generally  speaking,  adults  only  joined  the  new  sect,  the 
converted  (catechumens,  q.  v.)  were  diligently  instructed : 
the  power  of  this  sacrament  to  procure  perfect  remission 
of  sins,  was  taught,  and,  while  some  converts  delayed 
their  baptism  from  a  feeling  of  sinfulness  not  yet  re- 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  177 

moved,  others  did  the  same  from  a  wish  to  gratify  cor- 
rupt desires  a  little  longer,  and  to  have  their  sins  all 
forgiven  at  once." 

That  was  the  error  of  Tertullian,  and  the  reason  why 
he  opposed  infant  haptism.  He  supposed  that  haptism 
operates  to  the  remission  of  sins,  and  that  persons  should 
not  be  baptized  until  they  were  old,  about  to  die,  so  as 
to  have  all  their  sins  forgiven  at  once.  And  then  he 
introduced  another  heresy,  that  sins  committed  after 
baptism  could  not  be  forgiven. 

Neander,  vol.  i.,  page  313,  was  referred  to  by  the 
brother : 

"  The  error  became  more  firmly  established,  that 
without  external  baptism  no  one  could  be  delivered  from 
that  inherent  guilt — " 

That  was  the  error  ;  not  that  the  baptism  of  children 
was  the  error : 

"  could  be  saved  from  the  everlasting  punishment 

which  threatened  him,  or  raised  to  eternal  life  ;  and 
when  the  notion  of  a  magical  influence,  a  charm  con- 
nected with  the  sacrament,  continually  gained  ground, 
the  theory  was  finally  evolved  of  the  unconditional  neces- 
sity of  infant  baptism^ 

Not  of  the  necessity  of  infant  baptism,  but  of  the 
unconditional  necessity  of  infant  baptism  ;  and  the  full 
term  is  italicized.  Prior  to  that  time  they  did  not  hold 
that  if  a  child  died  while  unbaptized  it  would  be  lost.  But 
now  the  error  had  gone  so  far  that  it  was  held,  that  if 
he  was  not  baptized,  he  would  not  be  saved  ;  and,  there- 
fore, they  set  up  the  idea  of  the  unconditional  necessity 
of  infant  baptism. 

Reference  is  also  made  to  Kitto,  page  287 ; 
8# 


178  DEBATE    ON    THE 

''  Infant  baptism  was  established  neither  by  Christ 
nor  the  apostles.  In  all  places  where  we  find  the  neces- 
sity of  baptism  notified,  either  in  a  dogmatic  or  histori- 
cal point  of  view,  it  is  evident  that  it  was  only  meant 
for  those  who  were  capable  of  comprehending  the  word 
preached,  and  of  being  converted  to  Christ  by  the  act  of 
their  own  will.  A  pretty*  sure  testimony  of  its  non- 
existence in  the  apostolic  age  may  be  inferred  from 
1  Cor.  vii.  14,  since  Paul  would  certainly  have  referred 
to  the  baptism  of  children  for  their  holiness. — (Comp. 
Neander,  Hist,  of  the  Planting,  &c.,  i.,  page  206.) 
But  even  in  later  times,  several  teachers  of  the  Church, 
such  as  Tertilllian  {De  Bapt.,  18),  and  others,  reject 
this  custom  ;  indeed,  his  Church  in  general  (that  of 
North  Africa)  adhered  longer  than  others  to  the  primitive 
regulations.  Even  where  baptism  of  children  was  al- 
ready derived  theoretically  from  the  apostles,  its  prac- 
tice was,  nevertheless,  for  a  long  time  confined  to  a 
maturer  age." 

That  is  not  history,  but  Mr.  Kitto's  opinion  upon  the 
subject  ;  directly'  in  opposition  to  the  positive  testimony 
of  Cyprian,  Tertullian,  Fidus,  and  sixty  bishops,  a  long 
time  before  him. 

Mr.  Massey  :  I  would  be  very  glad  if  you  would  let 
the  audience  know  when  those  sixty  bishops  met. 

Mr.  CouLLiNG  :  The  gentleman  says  that  infant  bap- 
tism casts  an  imputation  upon  infant  salvation.  Now, 
if  we  contended,  as  he  says  the  Roman  Catholics  do  in 
the  Grolden  Manual,  for  baptismal  regeneration,  if  this 
congregation,  who  have  been,  some  of  them,  listening  to 
Methodist  preachers  ever  since  they  can  recollect,  believe 
that  Methodists  ever  did  preach  baptismal  regeneration, 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  179 

there  would  be  some  force  ia  that  argument.  If  bap- 
tism is  to  do  that  good  to  a  person,  we  then  do  cast  that 
imputation.  But  as  long  as  we  say,  and  as  our  Church 
says,  and  as  the  ministers  of  the  Church  always  have 
said — except  Mr.  "Wesley,  and  I  will  explain  that  pre- 
sently— that  baptism  is  not  essential  to  salvation,  nei- 
ther of  the  adult  nor  of  th^  infant,  how  do  we  cast  an 
imputation  upon  the  salvation  of  infants  ?  What  is  the 
meaning  of  baptism  ?  It  is  a  seal  and  sign,  is  it  not  ? 
Article  17  of  our  faith  reads  : 

''  Baptism  is  not  only  the  sign  of  profession  to  mark 
the  difference  whereby  Christians  are  distinguished  from 
others  that  are  not  baptized,  but  it  is  also  a  sign  of  re- 
generation, or  a  new  birth.  The  baptism  of  young  chil- 
dren is  to  be  retained  in  the  Church." 

There  is  the  article  of  our  faith,  telling  us  what  we 
are  to  believe.  No  ijitimation  of  baptismal  regenera- 
tion in  it.  Again,  you  are  referred  to  the  Episcopal 
Prayer-Book.  The  Episcopal  Church  does  not  need  my 
defence.  It  is  a  known  fact,  that  those  of  that  Church 
present  will  not  deny,  that  there  are  some  in  that  Church 
who  believe  in  baptismal  regeneration.  There  is  no 
doubt  about  that.  You  can  find  writers  in  that  Church 
who  do  believe  in  that.  Mr.  Wesley  believed  in  it,  and 
the  very  passage  read  from  that  doctrinal  tract,  was 
written  while  Mr.  Wesley  was  preaching  as  a  presbyter 
in  the  Church  of  England ;  and  I  doubt  not,  that 
tract  was  written  before  Mr.  Wesley  ever  thought  of 
forming  his  United  Societies.  Oh  !  but  you  have  adopt- 
ed that  book  !  Kow,  that  is  the  strangest  idea  of  my 
friend,  I  ever  heard.  Every  book  in  which  you  can  find 
the  imprint  of  the  Methodist  publishing  house,  or  with 


180  DEBATE    ON    THE 

a  Methodist  name  in  it — why,  we  adopt  them  all  ?  Be- 
cause these  tracts  were  published  at  200  Mulberry 
street,  I  am  to  be  held  responsible  for  the  crossing  of 
every  t  and  the  dotting  of  every  /,  and  everything  that 
is  in  it.  Will  he  be  held  responsible  for  everything  that 
writers  upon  his  side  have  said  ?  No  ;  and  I  would  not 
attempt  to  make  him  so.^  I  would  not  pretend  to  oc- 
cupy your  time  and  your  attention  with  what  would  re- 
coil upon  myself,  and  what  you  all  would  say  was  mani- 
fest injustice.  "We  publish  Mr.  Wesley's  sermons. 
What  for  ?  Because  of  their  intrinsic  excellence.  Is 
there  a  Methodist  in  all  this  congregation  that  believes 
in  the  resurrection  of  the  brute  creation  ?  Yet  Mr. 
Wesley  teaches  it.  Do  any  of  you  believe  it  ?  Not 
one  ;  I  never  saw  one  since  I  was  born  that  did.  Mr. 
Wesley,  in  his  early  days,  did  believe  in  the  doctrine  of 
baptismal  regeneration  ;  that  is,  with  his  interpretation 
of  it.  Not  baptismal  regeneration,  in  the  ordinary  ac- 
ceptation of  that  term — not  what  the  gentleman  and  I 
mean  by  it  at  this  day — but  a  high  metaphysical  dis- 
tinction, which  it  would  require  probably  a  full  hour  to 
explain.  Not  what  he  and  I  mean  by  it  at  all ;  but  a 
different  thing  altogether.  If  the  gentleman  will  give 
himself  the  trouble  to  read  a  few  essays  upon  the  sub- 
ject, he  will  fmd  altogether  a  different  phase  put  upon 
the  subject.  There  are  expressions  used,  metaphysical 
expressions,  and,  I  admit,  not  to  be  easily  understood  ; 
and  you  will  be  very  apt  to  do  them  injustice  by  taking 
only  a  superficial  view  of  the  subject.  Admit  that  he 
did  at  that  time  believe  it.  Take  up  Mr.  Wesley's  ser- 
mons ;  read  his  sermon  on  regeneration  ;  his  sermon 
upozi  salvation  by  faith  ;  read  fifty  other  sermons,  and 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  181 

you  will  find  that  if  in  this  passage  baptismal  regenera- 
tion is  taught,  as  my  good  brother  says  it  is,  as  clearly 
as  it  ever  was  taught,  baptismal  regeneration  is  repudi- 
ated in  other  places  with  a  force  of  argument,  and  a 
force  of  logic,  that  would  require  a  giant  mind  to  grap- 
ple with  ;  and  w^hich,  I  venture  to  say,  no  man  has  yet 
successfully  answered.  When  Mr.  Wesley  was  a  young 
man,  he  was  a  very  different  man  in  all  his  doctrinal 
views  from  what  he  was  when  an  older  man ;  and 
everybody,  who  has  given  himself  the  trouble  to  read 
his  life,  knows  the  change  that  took  place  in  his  senti- 
ments from  the  time  he  left  England  for  Greorgia,  until 
the  time  he  commenced  the  establishment  of  his  Socie- 
ties. There  are  men  here  who  know  that  I  speak 
the  truth,  and  measure  out  even-handed  justice  to  that 
man. 

Thomas  0.  Summers  is  cited,  and  the  following,  frora 
page  155  of  his  works,  was  read : 

"  Baptism  ratifies  our  title  to  the  covenant  blessings 
which  it  symbolizes,  and  pledges  our  discharge  of  cor- 
responding obligations.  The  federal  character  of  the 
ordinance  implies  this.  It  is  not  merely  a  sign  to  denote 
the  blessings  and  obligations  of  the  covenant,  but  also  a 
signum  confinnans,  a  seal  or  pledge  confirming  to  us 
the  bestowment  of  the  former,  and  binding  us  to  the 
performance  of  the  latter." 

I  think  that  is  about  as  innocent  as  anything  I  have 
heard.  Is  there  anything  of  baptismal  regeneration 
taught  in  that  ?  That  good  brother,  before  he  is  done 
here,  will  contend  for  everythuig  that  in  spirit  is  taught 
in  that :  that  God  is  good,  this  is  a  sign  and  seal,  and 
the  giving  of  it  confirms  to  the  world  the  blessings  of 


182  DEBATE    ON    THE 

the  covenant.  This  is  the  sum  and  substance  of  it. 
Thomas  0.  Summers  does  not  believe  in  baptismal 
regeneration  any  more  than  he  or  I  do.  How  then,  in 
the  name  of  reason,  can  the  baptism  of  infants  imply, 
how  can  it  constructively  prove,  that  we  do  not  believe 
that  infants  are  saved  unless  they  are  baptized?  So 
far  from  that  being  a  proof  of  it,  it  is  the  very  reverse. 
Every  Methodist  preacher  that  does  his  duty,  every  one 
of  them  that  baptizes  infants,  baptizes  them  because,  as 
I  have  proved  to  you,  they  are  fit  to  be  baptized.  They 
are  saved  by  the  merits  of  Christ ;  they  are  in  a  state  of 
salvation,  as  my  brother  himself  affirms  them  to  be ; 
and  we  only  give  them  a  seal,  an  outward  sign  of  that 
fact.  And  when  we  baptize  a  child,  we  say  that  that 
same  Saviour  who  died  for  the  parent,  died  for  the  child. 
Just  as  circumcision  was  the  sign  and  the  seal  of  the 
righteousness  possessed  by  Abraham,  before  he  received 
the  sign  and  seal,  and  he  never  could  have  gotten  it,  if 
he  had  not  had  the  righteousness  first.  And  the  child 
ought  not  to  be  baptized  until  he  is  fit  to  be  saved.  If 
you  doubt  his  going  to  heaven,  do  not  baptize  him.  If 
I  was  in  a  council,  and  this  subject  was  before  me,  I 
would  move  this  resolution :  that  a  man  who  believes 
that  a  child  who  dies  in  infancy  will  be  lost,  he  shall  be 
excused  from  having  his  child  baptized.  But  how  a 
man  can  object  to  baptizing  a  child,  when  he  thinks  and 
says  he  is  fit  for  heaven  and  will  be  saved,  I  cannot  con- 
ceive ;  and  then  to  bring  it  up  against  us,  as  encouraging 
a  heresy,  is  the  strangest  thing  I  ever  heard  of  in  my  life 
[Intermission.] 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  183 


MR.  MASSEY'S  SIXTH  ADDRESS. 

Mr.  Massey  :  The  only  note  I  took  of  the  last  address 
was  with  reference  to  the  responsibility  of  the  Methodist 
Church  for  the  statements  of  its  writers.  Mr.  Coulling 
inquires  if  he  is  to  be  held  responsible  for  the  writings 
of  Pedobaptists,  or  of  the  members  of  his  Church. 
By  what  means  do  you  determine  the  doctrines  of  any 
denomination?  He  appeals  to  this  audience,  to  know 
whether  Methodist  preachers  have  preached  to  them  the 
doctrine  of  baptismal  regeneration.  Now,  I  do  not  de- 
termine the  doctrines  of  any  Church  hy  the  sermons 
that  any  particular  individual  may  preach.  The  proper 
mode  of  determining  the  doctrines  of  a  Church  is  to  ascer- 
tain what  their  standard  writers  teach  as  their  doctrines. 
And  allow  me,  in  this  connection,  to  remark,  that  I  have 
not  the  slightest  idea  of  making  an  unkind  reflection 
upon  any  denomination  whose  writings  I  read  here.  I 
take  it  for  granted  that  men  are  honest  when  they  pub- 
lish their  doctrines ;  that  they  believe  them  to  be  correct. 
And,  if  this  be  the  case,  they  can  take  no  exception  to 
my  making  known  what  those  doctrines  are.  Certainly 
every  denomination  ought  to  be  glad  for  all  to  know 
just  what  doctrines  they  hold.  When  I  take  up  the 
standard  authors  in  the  Episcopal,  Methodist,  Presbyte- 
rian, or  any  other  Church,  to  show  what  they  declare  to 
be  the  doctrines  of  their  Church,  I  am  simply  stating 
or  presenting  to  you  what  they  declare,  and  no  one  can 
take  exception  to  it,  or  suppose  that  any  unkind  reflec- 
tion is  intended. 

Now,  let  us  examine  the  difficulty  in  which  the  gen- 
tleman seems  to  find  himself,  about  these  *'  Doctrinal 


184  DEBATE    ON    THE 

Tracts."  He  says  I  hold  him  responsible  before  this 
audience  for  everything  I  find  published  by  the  Metho- 
dist Conference.  Well,  %vho  is  responsible  for  the  doc- 
trines published  by  the  Methodist  Conference  ?  If  Meth- 
odists are  not  responsible  for  them,  ivho  is  responsible? 
He  tells  you  that  the  treatise  from  which  I  read  was 
Avritten  by  Mr.  Wesley  prior  to  his  organizing  his  "  sep- 
arate societies."  I  do  not  care  if  it  had  been  written 
in  the  year  one.  The  Methodist  Conference  publishes  it 
to  the  world  as  their  doctrine,  in  a  volume  which  they 
denominate  their  "  Doctrinal  Tracts^  And  here  is 
what  they  say  in  reference  to  it : 

"  Several  of  the  following  Tracts  were  formerly  pub- 
lished in  the  form  of  Discipline ;  but  as  this  undergoes 
a  revision  once  in  four  years,  the  General  Conference  of 
1812  ordered  these  Tracts  to  be  left  out  of  the  Dis- 
cipline ;  and,  that  they  might  still  be  within  the  reach 
of  every  reader,  directed  them  to  be  published  in  a  sepa- 
rate volume.  They  have  been  accordingly  prepared  and 
published  in  this  form,  in  a  stereotyped  edition. 

"  Several  new  Tracts  are  included  in  this  volume,  and 
Mr.  Wesley's  '  Short  Treatise  on  Baptism'  is  substituted 
in  the  place  of  the  extract  from  Mr.  Edwards  on  that 
subject." 

Why  was  3Ir.  Wesleyh  treatise  substituted  in  place 
of  Mr.  Edwards',  if  not  for  the  reason  that  they  recog- 
nized this  as  teaching  what  they  believe  w,ore  distinctly 
than  the  extracts  from  Mr.  Edwards,  which  they  before 
published  ?  I  do  not  care  by  whom  it  was  written — if 
it  had  been  written  by  a  man  making  no  profession  of 
religion  at  all.  The  Methodist  Church  takes  it  up, 
adopts  it,  publishes  it,  and  they  are  responsible  for  it. 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  185 

How  do  they  do  it?  As  '•'Doctrinal  Tracts  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Churchy  The  gentleman  says  he 
is  not  responsible  for  this.  I  do  not  hold  him  personally 
responsible  for  it.  Bat  if  he  stands  here  as  the  repre- 
sentative of  the  Methodist  Churchy  then  I  do  hold  him 
responsible  J  and  through  him^  I  hold  the  ivhole  Methodist 
Church  responsible  for  it. 

If  I  were  to  follow  the  gentleman  through  all  his  wan- 
derings, you  would  have  a  good  illustration  of  a  sigQ 
upon  a  mechanic's  shop  I  once  heard  of,  viz.:  "J.//  man- 
ner  of  twisting  and  turning  done  hereP  When  witnesses 
are  introduced,  arguments  presented,  deductions  and 
conclusions  drawn,  that  are  irresistible,  he,  finding  him- 
self unable  to  refute  them,  rises  and  repudiates  both 
writers  and  their  doctrines.  Now,  these  men  have  gen- 
erally been  esteemed  good  men,  true  men ;  they  have 
also  been  thought  to  know  something,  to  be  both  schol- 
ars and  theologians  of  the  first  order  among  Pedobap- 
tists;  but  it  has  been  reserved  for  the  Rev.  Mr.  Coulling 
to  write  their  epitaphs,  setting  them  all  down  as  igno- 
ramuses, or,  as  univorthy  of  confidence.  Poor  men! 
how  I  pity  them  1 

As  the  gentleman  has  himself  presented  the  ^'Dis- 
cipline of  the  Methodist  Church  South ^^^  I  suppose  he 
will  consider  that  authoritative.  On  page  159  we  find 
the  minister's  address  prior  to  the  baptism  of  infants. 
It  is  in  these  words  : 

''  Dearly  beloved,  forasmuch  as  all  men  are  conceived 
and  born  in  sin,  and  that  our  Saviour  Christ  saith.  Ex- 
cept a  man  be  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  can- 
not enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God,  I  beseech  you  to 
call  "Upon   God   the   Father,  through  our    Lord    Jesus 


186  DEBATE    ON    THE 

Christ,  that  of  his  bounteous  mercy  he  will  grant  to 
this  child  that  which  by  nature  he  cannot  have  ;  that  he 
may  be  baptized  with  water  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  and 
received  into  Christ's  holy  Church,  and  be  made  a  lively 
member  of  the  same." 

This  is  liis  prayer : 

''Almighty  and  everlasting  Grod,  who  of  thy  great 
mercy  didst  save  Noah  and  his  family  in  the  ark  from 
perishing  by  water ;  and  also  didst  safely  lead  the  children 
of  Israel,  thy  people,  through  the  Red  Sea,  figuring 
thereby  thy  holy  baptism :  we  beseech  thee,  for  thine 
infinite  mercies,  that  thou  wilt  look  upon  this  child : 
wash  him  and  sanctify  him  with  the  Holy  Grhost ;  that 
he,  being  delivered  from  thy  wrath,  may  be  received 
into  the  ark  of  Christ's  Church,  and  being  steadfast  in 
faith,  joyful  through  hope,  and  rooted  in  love,  may  so 
pass  the  waves  of  this  troublesome  world,  that  finally  he 
may  come  to  the  land  of  everlasting  life  :  there  to  reign 
with  thee,  world  without  end,  through  Jesus  Christ  our 
Lord. 

"0  merciful  God,  grant  that  the  old  Adam  in  this 
child  may  be  so  buried,  that  the  new  man  may  be  raised 
up  in  him. 

"  Grant  that  all  carnal  affections  may  die  in  him, 
and  things  belonging  to  the  spirit  may  live  and  grow 
in  himP 

My  friend  says,  he  baptizes  infants  because  they  are 
fit  subjects  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  and  therefore  fit 
subjects  for  baptism.  But  here  is  something  different. 
I  thought  yesterday  I  should  have  to  hand  him  over  to 
Mr.  Campbell,  because  he  contended  so  earnestly  for  the 
washing'  away  of  sins  by  baptism.  But  that  is  not  the 
music  he  is  willing  to  face  to-day.     He  claims  that  in- 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  187 

fants  are  already  fit  for  heaven,  and  yet  his  own  author- 
ity seeks  tfe  qualify  them  for  it  by  baptism.  But  to 
continue : 

"  G-rant  that  he  may  have  power  and  strength  to  have 
victory,  and  to  triumph  against  the  devil,  the  world,  and 
the  flesh. 

'^  Grant  that  whosoever  is  dedicated  to  thee  by  our 
office  and  ministry,  may  also  be  endued  with  heavenly 
virtues,  and  everlastingly  rewarded  through  thy  mercy, 
0  blessed  Lord  Grod,  who  dost  live  and  govern  all  things, 
world  without  end. 

"  Almighty,  every-living  G-od,  whose  most  dearly- 
beloved  Son,  Jesus  Christ,  for  the  forgiveness  of  our  sins, 
did  shed  out  of  his  most  precious  side  both  water  and 
blood,  and  gave  commandment  to  his  disciples  that  they 
should  go  teach  all  nations,  and  baptize  them  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost;  regard,  we  beseech  thee,  the  supplications  of 
thy  congregation ;  and  grant  that  this  child,  now  to  be 
baptized,  may  receive  the  fulness  of  thy  grace,  and  ever 
remain  in  the  number  of  thy  faithful  and  elect  children, 
through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord." 

Now  turn  to  page  27,  and  you  will  find : 

"  Baptism  is  not  only  a  sign  of  profession  and  mark 
of  difference,  whereby  Christians  are  distinguished 
from  others  that  are  not  baptized ;  but  it  is  also  a  sign 
of  regeneration,  or  the  neiv  birth.  The  baptism  of 
young  children  is  to  be  retained  in  the  Church." 

Now,  I  submit  to  any  intelligent  person  in  this  audi- 
ence, if  this  is  not  solemn  mockery  ;  if  it  does  not  mean 
that  in  the  baptism  of  infants  there  is  a  recognition  of 
their  regeneration.     If  that  be  not  its  meaning,  it  is  an 


188  DEBATE     ON    THE 

imposition  on  all  Christendom,  to  use  language  which 
would  be  recognized  everywhere  else  as  meaning  this. 
Should  you  find  this  language  anywhere  else,  you  would 
he  constrained  to  acknowledge  such  to  be  its  import ; 
and  I  dare  say  that  the  founder  of  the  ''  Methodist  Socie- 
ties" transmitted  a  little  of  his  doctrine,  as  well  as  de- 
nominational relations  to  his  posterity.  If  this  doctrine 
be  not  taught  here,  then  ivhat  is  ?  They  pray  to  Grod 
that  this  child,  now  about  to  be  baptized,  may  be  re- 
generated. They  declare  that  in  this  act  there  is  "  a 
sign  of  regeneration.'^'^  Now,  they  do  one  of  two 
things  ;  they  either  say  to  the  world,  when  they  apply 
water  to  an  infant,  that  they  believe  the  child  to  be  re- 
generated, or  they  apply  a  false  sign,  a  sign  of  some- 
thing which  they  do  not  believe  to  exist.  Which  horn 
of  the  dilemma  will  they  take  ?  I  do  not  say  that  fill 
Methodists  believe  this  ;  f  do  not  believe  they  do.  But 
I  want  you  to  understand  the  doctrines  of  your  own 
Church,  and  to  see  how  foreign  they  are  from  the  doc- 
trines of  the  word  of  God.  I  do  not  believe  that  men 
of  intelligence  will  be  much  longer  led  blindly  by  lead- 
ers, who  try  to  cast  all  manner  of  mists  and  clouds 
around  these  things,  to  prevent  them  from  being  under- 
stood in  their  true  naked  character. 

I  wish,  in  conclusion  of  this  argument,  to  present  you 
a  few  extracts  from  an  article  in  the  North  British  Re- 
view, No.  34,  August,  1852.  It  is  a  letter  to  the  Right 
Honorable  Lord  John  Russell,  member  of  Parliament, 
by  a  member  of  the  Middle  Temple,  London,  1851,  in 
which  is  discussed  the  Liturgy  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land.    It  reads : 

"  We  are  now  brought  to  the  last  and  most  important 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  189 

topic  of  our  inquiry  ;  the  service  for  infant  baptism. 
This  is  the  great  battlefield  between  Tractarians  [a  term 
applied  to  the  writers  of  the  Oxford  tracts  in  favor  of 
Puseyism]  and  Evangelicals,  High- Churchmen  and 
Low- Churchmen,  Catholics  and  Protestants,  within  the 
Church  of  England.  In  the  view  taken  of  the  nature 
and  effects  of  infant  baptism,  the  vital  distinction  be- 
tween Protestantism  and  every  form  of  so-called  Cath- 
olic principles,  is  brought  to  light.  To  this  service 
Anglo- Catholicism  appeals  as  a  distinct  recognition  of 
the  sacerdotal  (priestly)  doctrine.  '  It  is  the  especial 
province  of  Christian  laymen  at  this  time,'  says  the 
author  of  the  pamphlet,  whose  title  we  have  prefixed  to 
this  article,  '  to  protest  against  that  noxious  principle 
of  sacerdotal  assumption  which  has  been  the  fruitful 
source  of  every  superstitious  perversion  of  gospel  truth. 
It  is  a  fundamental  error,  and  a  root  of  almost  in- 
exhaustible fertility.'  Most  true  is  the  remark.  This 
is  the  melancholy  moral  furnished  by  ecclesiastical  his- 
tory, from  the  second  centary  down  to  the  nineteenth. 
This  is  the  fatal  poison  imbibed  from  the  combined  in- 
fluences of  Judaism  and  heathenism,  which  has  con- 
taminated the  pure  stream  of  the  Christian  faith,  and, 
preying  on  its  vitals,  has  rendered  it  comparatively  pow- 
erless to  realize  those  glorious  hopes  which  its  bright 
dawn  ushered  into  the  world.  This  has  been  the  prolific 
seed  of  almost  every  corruption  ;  the  dark  and  brooding 
cloud  which  has  obscured  the  brilliant  ideal  of  Christian 
truth,  which  has  debased  the  standard  of  its  purity ;  and 
by  the  interposition  between  (rod  and  the  Christian  of  a 
mediator  as  helpless  and  as  sinful  as  himself,  has  striven 
to  obliterate  the  grand  characteristic  of  his  faith — his 


190  DEBATE    OiN    THE 

belief  of  a  personal  union  with  Him  who  is  both  God 
and  man.  This  corruption  strikes  its  roots  into  the  low- 
est depths  of  human  nature  ;  and  most  hard  is  it  to 
eradicate. 

"  Sacerdotalism,  unable  to  derive  the  smallest  support 
from  the  Christian  Scriptures,  invented  the  sacramental 
theory  as  a  basis  on  which  to  sustain  itself.  In  the  ab- 
sence of  all  authority  from  revelation,  it  was  felt  that 
the  doctrine  of  a  priesthood  would  be  more  easily  accept- 
ed, if  functions  could  be  devised  which  appeared  to  call 
for  the  creation  of  an  order  of  priests.  Priests  were  not 
needed  for  the  purely  ministerial  functions  of  presiding 
over  public  worship  and  ruling  the  Christian  people. 
But,  if  men's  souls  were  to  be  saved  by  the  eating  of 
bread  and  wine,  converted  by  human  operations  into 
the  very  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord,  and  their  sins 
were  to  be  washed  away  by  the  sprinkling  of  water, 
what  could  be  more  natural  than  that  such  an  awful 
power  over  human  destiny  should  be  entrusted  to  a  pe- 
culiar and  separate  order  of  officers.  It  was  no  longer 
in  the  depths  of  the  human  spirit,  that  the  feelings,  af- 
fections, and  character  of  man  were  to  be  renewed  and 
purified  ;  they  were  to  be  reached  through  the  body. 
An  external  agency  was  now  needed  ;  and  since  on  that 
external  agency,  by  a  mysterious  law,  the  state  of  the 
soul  depended,  it  seemed  to  require  a  special  class  of 
men  commissioned  to  wield  its  mighty  influence.  The 
two  parts  of  the  theory  exactly  fitted  together  ;  the  soul 
to  be  acted  on  through  the  body,  and  priests  to  adminis- 
ter this  action." 

Again : 

"  If  a  spiritual  effect  has  been  produced  on  the  soul  of 


SUBJECTS    OF     BAPTISM. 


191 


the  infant,  it  must  have  been  produced  wholly,  on  marl's 
side,  by  the  agency  of  the  priest :  his  outward  act  has 
altered  the  mind  of  the  baptized  person  without  any 
consciousness  of  his  own.  This  is  a  superstition  which 
contradicts  directly  the  very  idea  of  Christianity  ;  but  it 
is  also  the  essence  of  sacerdotalism.  It  is  indisputable^ 
that  if  the  term  '  regeneration'  expresses  any  spiritual 
effect  on  the  soul,  the  baptismal  service  countenances 
the  sacramental  system  and  the  priestly  theory.  And 
precisely  the  same  result  follows  also,  if  (as  some  High 
Churchmen,  who  hesitated  to  ascribe  to  the  sprinkling 
of  the  baptismal  water  a  transforming  power  on  the 
soul,  have  imagined)  the  effect  of  baptism  is  limited  to 
the  washing  away  of  original  sin.  This  supposition  im- 
plies that  an  infant,  who  had  the  misfortune  of  dying 
before  baptism,  necessarily  retains  the  burden  of  original 
guilt,  and,  as  Augustine  and  many  others  have  believedj 
falls  under  eternal  condemnation.  How  any  person  who 
had  obtained  the  faintest  insight  into  the  meaning  of  the 
Christian  religion,  could  have  brought  himself  to  believe 
that  God  consigns  an  unconscious  and  helpless  being  to 
eternal  happiness  or  eternal  misery,  according  as  an  ex- 
ternal and  purely  mechanical  operation  has  been  per- 
formed upon  him  by  the  instrumentality  of  others,  is 
what  we  have  never  been  able  to  conceive.  But  cer- 
tainly, if  life  or  death,  and  that  forever,  depends  upon 
an  outward  rite,  without  the  slightest  mental  concur- 
rence on  the  part  of  the  recipient,  the  fundamental  idea 
of  a  priesthood,  the  intervention  of  a  human  mediator 
between  Grod  and  man,  is  established  :  sacerdotalism  has 
gained  its  principle :  it  will  have  an  easy  victory  over 
every  other  impediment. 


192  DEBATE    ON    THE 

*'  But,  thank  God,  there  is  not  one  word  in  the  New 
Testament  which  in  the  shghtest  degree  sanctions  so 
terrible  a  doctrine  :  we  are  spared  the  pain,  to  say  tlie 
least,  of  seing  the  Christian  Scriptures  contradicting 
their  own  ideal  of  Christianity.  The  origin  of  the  mis- 
chief is  plain.  The  doctrine  of  the  baptismal  service  is 
true  :  the  unconsciousness  of  the  infant  is  the  real  fons 
mail.  The  baptismal  service  is  founded  on  Scripture  ; 
but  its  application  to  an  unconscious  infant  is  destitute  of 
any  express  Scriptural  warrant.  Scripture  knows  nothing 
of  the  baptism  of  infants.  There  is  absolutely  not  a 
single  trace  of  it  to  be  found  in  the  New  Testament." 

On  page  210,  he  says  : 

^'  History  confirms  the  inference  drawn  from  the  sa- 
cred volume.  Infant  baptism  cannot  be  clearly  traced 
higher  than  the  middle  of  the  second  century  ;  and  even 
then  it  was  not  universal." 

After  stating  the  history  of  the  subject,  he  presents 
you  with  the  conclusion  drawn  from  its  study. 

''  Some,  indeed,  have  argued  that  in  the  silence  of 
Scripture,  it  is  fair  to  presume  that  a  custom  whose 
existence  is  seen  in  the  second  century  must  have  de- 
scended from  the  apostles." 

That  is  about  the  argument  that  you  have  heard  here  ; 
that  silence  justifies  our  taking  for  granted  that  that 
was  the  practice.  Upon  the  same  principle  I  can  take 
anything  else  for  granted,  which  I  may  wish  to  teach, 
and  upon  which  the  Bible  is  silent.     He  continues  : 

"  But  the  presumption  is  wholly  the  other  way. 
Baptism  appears  in  the  New  Testament  avowedly  as  the 
rite  whereby  converts  were  incorporated  into  the  Chris- 
tian society ;   the  burden  of  the  proof  is   entirely  on 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM. 


19; 


those  who  afFirm  its  applicability  to  those  whose  minds 
are  incapable  of  any  conscious  act  of  faith." 

But  my  brother  would  have  me  prove  that  infants 
were  not  baptized.  I  assert  that  believers  ivere  baptiz- 
ed^ and  believers  only,  I  show  you  that  every  case  of 
baptism  in  the  New  Testament  is  a  recognition  of  this 
principle — of  believer's  baptism.  He  attempts  to  show 
that  others  were  entitled  to  it.  He  affirms  that  infants^ 
as  well  as  believers^  are  entitled  to  it.  It  devolves  upon 
him  to  establish  his  affirmation.  But,  you  have  seen 
that  he  has  not  removed  a  single  peg  that  I  have  driven 
upon  the  subject. 

But  to  continue  the  quotation : 

"  But  a  brighter  day  is  dawning.  Dr.  McNeile,  Mr. 
Litton,  we  may  almost  add,  the  Archbishop  of  Canter- 
bury, are  perceiving  that  the  practice  of  infant  baptism 
is  not  found  in  Scripture.  When  the  fact  is  universally 
recognized,  the  controversy  will  assume  a  new  form. 
The  ground  will  be  completely  cut  away  from  beneath 
the  sacramental  theory ;  and  Protestants  will  have  the 
full  benefit  of  their  own  principle — the  appeal  to  Scrip- 
ture as  the  form  of  religious  truth." 

Hear  him  again : 

"A  spiritual  blessing  of  necessity  implies  a  spiritual 
recipient.  This  momentous  truth — Avhich  lies  at  the 
foundation  of  the  Christian  faith — has  been  forgotten  by 
those  who  hold  that  infant  baptism  is  a  complete  sacra- 
ment. They  have  been  betrayed  into  this  forgetfulness 
by  the  belief  that  infant  baptism  was  expressly  of  apos- 
tolical origin,  and  by  the  consequent  pressure  of  the  lan- 
guage of  Scripture.  They  found  spiritual  blessings 
attached  to  baptism  in  Scripture  ;  but  they  found  also 

9 


194 


DEBATE    ON    THE 


spiritual  conditions  imposed  upon  the  recipient.  The 
belief  that  infant  baptism  was  the  institution  there 
spoken  of  involved  them  in  a  hopeless  dilemma,  from 
which  they  vainly  endeavored  to  extricata  themselves 
by  overlooking  the  spiritual  state  of  the  infant,  and  at 
the  same  time  supposing  that  God,  in  some  mysterious 
manner,  communicated  some  equally  mysterious  bless- 
ing to  his  soul.  The  very  essence  of  sacerdotalism  was 
involved  in  this  belief.  But  a  mere  examination  of 
Scripture  has  made  all  clear.  The  language  of  the 
apostolic  Church  does  not  apply  to  infant  baptism,  and 
is  consequently  free  from  every  taint  of  the  priestly 
theory." 

Now  to  the  points  before  you.  I  have  said  that  infant 
baptism  casts  suspicion  upon  the  doctrine  of  infant  sal- 
vation. Is  it  not  claimed  by  Pedobaptists  in  their  gen- 
eral writings,  that  baptized  children  occupy  a  position 
not  occupied  by  those  unbaptized?  When  they  speak 
of  baptized  children,  they  speak  of  them  as  "  children 
of  the  covenant,"  as  having  peculiar  privileges,  as  being 
entitled  to  favors  that  children  in  common  are  not  enti- 
tled to.  Is  there  no  difference,  in  their  opinion,  between 
a  baptized  and  an  ^^/^baptized  child  ?  If  not,  why  such 
language  ?  and  why  appropriate  an  ordinance  to  them 
which  Grod  designed  for  betievers  only?  And  if  there 
be  any  difference,  vjhat  is  it  ?  What  is  the  benefit 
which  the  baptized  child  receives  ?  The  very  moment 
the  gentleman  gets  out  of  this  net,  he  will  find,  himself 
without  any  grounds  at  all  for  infant  baptism.  If  it  be 
a  mere /orm,  conveying  no  spiritual  blessings,  why  ad- 
minister it,  without  any  authority  from  the  word  of 
God  ?     He  admits  that  believer'' s  baptism  is  taught  in 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  195 

the  word  of  God.  Suppose  we  all  become  Pedobaptists, 
will  not  that  abolish  believer's  baptism  entirely  ? 

Again :  by  infant  baptism  you  take  away  the  liberty 
of  the  child.  If  children  are  all  baptized  in  infancy^ 
will  you  ?*ebaptize  them  when  they  become  believers? 
If  not,  where  would  you  have  any  believer'' s  baptism  ? 
It  is  taught  in  the  Bible,  and  in  the  Baptist  Church, 
but  where  else  will  it  be  found  ?  You  would  thereby 
make  void  the  commandment  of  God  by  the  traditions 
of  men. 

I  think  I  have  gone  through  all  the  argument  that  is 
necessary  to  establish  in  your  mind  this  fact :  that  Jesus 
Christ  authorized  the  baptism  of  none  but  believers. 
His  apostles  so  understood,  and  so  practised.  The 
Christian  Church,  until  about  the  middle  of  the  third 
century,  continued  the  same  practice  :  about  that  time, 
the  corrupting  idea  of  baptismal  regeneration  originated 
infant  baptism,  and  it  gradually  progressed,  until  we 
find  it  where  it  now  is.  No  authority  can  be  found  in 
the  word  of  God  to  sustain  any  other  baptism  than  be- 
liever^s  baptism. 

I  now  turn  my  attention  to  the  remarks  of  the  gen- 
tleman upon  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures.  And  I 
must  say,  that  I  have  been  struck  with  tv/o  peculiar 
facts.  In  the  first  place,  I  have  been  struck  with  the 
remarkable  familiarity  of  the  gentleman  with  the  wan- 
derings of  the  children  of  Israel,  and  with  much  that 
pertains  to  the  Old  Testament  dispensation :  and  then, 
with  the  absence  of  that  famiharity  with  the  New  Tes- 
tament writings,  which  I  should  have  expected  a  man 
who  had  been  preaching  as  long  as  he  has,  to  possess. 
Just  here,  upon  this  point,  let  me  make  a  single  remark 


196  DEBATE    ON    THE 

The  gentleman  was  going  off  in  a  perfect  flourish  about 
the  baptism  of  Simon,  claiming  it  as  a  case  of  baptism, 
where  no  profession  of  faith  was  made.  And  I,  without 
thinking — too  speedily,  perhaps — ^just  laid  the  passage 
before  him,  that  said,  "  Simon  believed  and  was  bap- 
tized." And  then  he  had  to  back  down  from  his  high 
position.  In  another  argument,  he  said,  that  in  Acts  ii., 
and,  I  think,  the  forty-first  verse,  it  is  said  that,  "  the 
same  day  were  added  to  the  Church  about  3000  souls." 
If  he  will  look  into  that  passage,  he  will  find  that  the 
word  ''  Church"  is  not  there  ;  that  is  all  his  own  imagi- 
nation. He  was  endeavoring  to  show  that  the  Church 
was  organized  prior  to  that  time — he  would  like  to  have 
it  so — and  thought,  no  doubt,  it  was  so  ;  but  he  was 
simply  mistaken.  The  passage  reads  :  "  The  same  day 
there  were  added  unto  them  [the  disciples  of  Jesus 
Christ]  about  three  thousand  souls."  Hence,  he  is  minus 
a  Church. 

Now,  to  his  first  argument  with  regard  to  the  cove- 
nants, circumcision,  etc.,  I  wish  him  to  observe  them 
as  I  state  them,  and  see  if  I  state  them  correctly.  His 
first  argument  was  : — The  covenant  of  redemption  and 
the  covenant  of  circumcision  are  one  and  the  same.  Is 
that  a  correct  statement  ? 

Mr.  CouLLiNG :  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Masse Y  :  That  is  what  you  said. 

Mr.  CouLLiNG  :  No,  sir  ;  I  never  said  that. 

Mr.  Massey  :  Did  you  not  say  that  the  gospel  cove- 
nant and  the  covenant  of  circumcision  were  the  very 
same  ? 

Mr.  CouLLiNG  :  No,  sir.  Just  repeat  what  you  said 
my  argument  wa^  ? 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  197 

Mr.  Massey  :  The  covenant  of  redemption  and  the 
covenant  of  circumcision  are  one  and  the  same. 

Mr.  CouLLiNG  :  Will  you  allow  me  to  state  my  propo- 
sition ? 

Mr.  Massey  :  Certainly,  I  will.  Of  course,  my  time 
is  to  be  saved. 

Mr.  CouLLiNG  :  No,  sir  :  It  is  for  your  own  henefit. 
But  I  can  do  it  afterward. 

Mr.  Massey  :  Is  the  gentleman  afraid  to  allow  me  two 
minutes  of  my  oivn  time,  that  he  wishes  to  occupy  in 
explanations^? 

Mr.  CouLLiNG  :   No,  sir. 

Mr.  Massey  :  The  gentleman's  whole  argument  in  the 
first  place,  was  predicated,  unless  I  have  more  misun- 
derstood him  than  I  have  misunderstood  anything  else 
that  has  been  said  upon  this  ground,  that  the  covenant 
made  with  Abraham,  430  years  before  the  giving  of  the 
law,  was  the  covenant  of  circumcision.  Am  I  right 
there  ? 

Mr.  CouLLiNG  :  Go  on  ;  I  will  answer  you  when  it  is 
my  turn. 

Mr.  Massey  :  Yery  well.  There  are  two  dispensa- 
tions, said  he,  in  his  second  address,  but  both  under  the 
same  covenant.  (I  am  willing  to  submit  the  correct- 
ness of  that  statement  to  this  audience,  or  to  the  report 
of  this  discussion.)  Now,  I  have  but  a  brief  review  to 
make  of  his  arguments. 

My  first  objection  to  his  view  of  the  subject,  that  is 
Paul,  in  Galatians  iv.  24,  declares  that  there  were  tivo 
covenants.  He  says  of  Agar  and  Sarah,  that  these 
were  an  allegory  representing  the  tioo  covenants  ;  the 
one  from  Mount   Sinai,  which  gendereth  to  bondage, 


198  DEBATE    ON    THE 

and  the  other  from  Jerusalem,  which  is  the  mother  of 
us  all. 

Another  objection  to  the  position  that  the  covenant  of 
redemption  and  the  covenant  of  circumcision  are  the 
same,  is  found  in  the  fact,  that  the  covenant  of  redemp- 
tion was  made  with  Abraham,  430  years  before  the  giv- 
ing of  the  law  ;  while  the  covenant  of  circumcision  was 
made  but  406  years  before  that  event ;  twenty-four 
years  after  the  covenant  of  redemption.  You  will  find 
this  established  by  the  reference  to  Galatians,  which  I 
have  already  made,  and  by  the  following  passages  in 
Grenesis. 

Now,  let  us  turn  to  these  covenants,  themselves.  In 
the  twelfth  chapter  of  G-enesis,  third  verse,  you  find 
G-od  saying  to  Abraham,  "  In  thee  shall  all  families  of 
the  earth  be  blessed."  In  Gren.  xxii.  18,  renewing  the 
same  promise,  G-od  says :  "And  in  thy  seed  shall  all  the 
nations  of  the  earth  be  blessed."  Whom  did  he  mean 
by  this  "seed?"  Paul  says:  "He  saith  not,  and  to 
seeds,  as  of  many,  but  as  of  one,  and  to  thy  seed,  which 
is  Christy  Then  G-od  meant  here  to  say,  that  in  Christ, 
who  should  descend  from  Abraham,  according  to  his  hu- 
man nature,  "  shall  all  families  of  the  earth  be  blessed." 
In  G-enesis  xvii.  7-14  inclusive,  we  find  the  establish- 
ment of  the  covenant  of  circumcision  : 

"And  I  will  establish  my  covenant  between  me  and 
thee,  and  thy  seed  after  thee,  in  their  generations,  for 
an  everlasting  covenant,  to  be  a  God  unto  thee,  and  to 
thy  seed  after  thee.  And  I  will  give  unto  thee,  and 
to  thy  seed  after  thee,  the  land  wherein  thou  art  a 
stranger,  all  the  land  of  Canaan  for  an  everlasting  pos- 
session ;  and  I  will  be  their  God.     And  God  said  unto 


SUBJECTS   OF    BAPTISM.  199 

Abraham,  Thou  shalt  keep  my  covenant  therefore,  thou 
and  thy  seed  after  thee,  in  their  generations.  This  is 
my  covenant,  which  ye  shall  keep  between  me  and  thee, 
and  thy  seed  after  thee :  Every  man-child  among  you 
shall  be  circumcised.  And  ye  shall  circumcise  the  flesh 
of  your  foreskin  ;  and  it  shall  be  a  token  of  the  covenant 
betwixt  me  and  you.  And  he  that  is  eight  days  old 
shall  be  circumcised  among  you,  every  man-child  in 
your  generations  ;  he  that  is  born  in  thy  house,  or  bought 
with  money  of  any  stranger,  which  is  not  of  thy  seed. 
He  that  is  born  in  thy  house,  and  he  that  is  bought 
with  thy  money,  must  needs  be  circumcised  :  and  my 
covenant  shall  be  in  your  flesh  for  an  everlasting  cove- 
nant. And  the  uncircumcised  man-child,  whose  flesh 
of  his  foreskin  is  not  circumcised,  that  soul  shall  be  cut 
off"  from  his  people  ;  he  hath  broken  my  covenant." 

Now,  having  to  present  you  these  covenants,  I  call 
your  attention  to  some  references  to  them  in  the  New 
Testament.  Remember,  if  you  please,  that  here  are 
two  covenants ;  the  covenant  of  redemption^  and  the 
covenant  oi ^circumcision.  Now,  to  which  of  these  does 
this  apply?     Romans  iv.  8-11 : 

"  Blessed  is  the  man  to  whom  the  Lord  will  not  im- 
pute sin.  Cometh  this  blessedness  then  upon  the  cir- 
cumcision only,  or  upon  the  uncircumcision  also  ?  for 
we  say  that  faith  was  reckoned  to  Abraham  for  righteous- 
ness. How  was  it  then  reckoned  ?  when  he  was  in  cir- 
cumcision, or  in  uncircumcision  ?  Not  in  circumcision, 
but  in  uncircumcision.  And  ho  received  the  sign  of  cir- 
cumcision ;  a  seal  of  ihe,  righteousness  of  the  faith  which 
he  had,  yet  being  uncircumcised." 

Bear  in  mind,  that  here  circumcision  is  declared  to  be 


200  DEB AT K    ON    THE 

"  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  the  faith"  which  Abraham 
had  ;  you  frequently  hear  it  stated  that  it  is  the  seal  of 
righteousness  to  all  his  posterity,  or  to  all  ivho  receive  it. 
But  you  find  nowhere  in  the  word  of  God  such  an  idea. 
It  was  ''a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  the  faith  which 
he  [Abraham]  had,  yet  being'  uncircumcised,  that  he 
might  be  the  father  of  all  them  that  believe" — that  he 
might  have  a  spiritual  connection,  might  be  recognized 
as  sustaining  a  spiritual  relationship  to  all  believers — 
"  the  father  of  all  them  that  believe,  though  they  be  not 
circumcised,  that  righteousness  might  be  imputed  to 
them  also." 

Again,  in  Romans  xi.,  beginning  with  the  seven- 
teenth verse : 

"And  if  some  of  the  branches  be  broken  off,  and  thou, 
being  a  wild  olive-tree,  wert  graffed  in  among  them,  and 
with  them  partakest  of  the  root  and  fatness  of  the  olive- 
tree  :  boast  not  against  the  branches  ;  but  if  thou  boast, 
thou  bearest  not  the  root,  but  the  root  thee." 

They  did  not  sustain  Abraham,  but  they  were  graffed 
into  that  same  faith  that  Abraham  had,  yet  being  uncir- 
cumcised.     What  is  the  argument  ? 

"  Thou  wilt  say  then,  The  branches  were  broken  off, 
that  I  might  be  graffed  in." 

Why  were  they  broken  off? 

''Well,  because  of  unbelief  they  were  broken  off" 
How  do  those  who  are  graffed  in  stand  ?  Were  they 
graffed  in  by  circumcision?  No  I  "  Thou  standest  by 
faithP  This  is  the  very  doctrine  I  have  been  contend- 
ing for :  the  Gentiles  stood  by  faith.  Now,  I  think  it 
is  very  clear  that  Paid  did  not  recognise  the  two  cove- 
nants as  one  and  the  same,  under  different  dispensations. 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  201 

I  think  that  Brother  Paiil^  or  Brother  Coidling^  one  or 
the  other ^  is  mistaken.  And  as  Brother  Paul  lived  a  little 
nearer  to  the  time  of  the  promulgation  of  these  covenants 
than  Brother  Coulling  does,  I  take  it  for  granted  that 
Brother  Paul  knows  as  mach  about  it  as  Brother  Coul- 
ling does.  Then,  the  covenant  of  redemption^  and  the 
covenant  of  circumcision,  are  not  the  same,  but  two  sep- 
arate and  distinct  covenants. 

The  second  argument  of  the  hrother  is,  that  the  Chris* 
tian  Church  is  a  continuation  of  the  Jewish  Church :  in 
other  words,  that  the  churches  are  the  same,  only  under 
different  dispensations.  Was  not  this  the  argument  of 
the  gentleman  all  the  way  through  ?  I  will  not  appeal 
to  the  gentleman  again,  to  know  whether  I  have  rightly 
stated  his  position.  (I  am  sorr}'  he  wished  to  occupy????/ 
time  in  stating  his  position,  and  then  was  so  unchari- 
table as  to  deny  me  the  time  he  occupied.)  His  whole 
argument  was  based  upon  the  assumption  that  the  Jew- 
ish Church  and  the  Christian  Church  are  the  same  ;  or, 
that  the  "Christian  Church"  was  but  a  continuation  of 
the  "  Jewish  Church." 

T  object  to  this,  first :  that  G-od  declared  to  Daniel  his 
purpose  to  set  up  a  new  kingdom  in  the  days  of  the 
Caesars.  ''  In  the  days  of  these  kings  will  the  Grod  of 
heaven  set  up  a  kingdom."  Here  was  a  plain  dec- 
laration of  Grod's  purpose  to  establish  an  organization 
that  then  had  not  an  existence.  If  the  kingdom  of  Jesus 
Christ  was  established  prior  to  this  time,  then  Daniel 
has  not  presented  us  with  a  correct  prophecy.  If  it  was 
not  estabhshed  at  this  time,  then  the  prophecy  has  fallen 
short  of  fulfilment. 

In  the  next  place,  I  object  to  it,  that  when  Peter 
9* 


202  DEBATE    ON    THE 

(Matthew  xvi.  16)  declared  Jesus  to  be  "the  Christ, 
the  Son  of  the  livmg  God,"  Jesus  declared  "  Upon  this 
rock  will  I  build  my  Church" — upon  this  declaration 
of  faith  in  him  should  the  Church  of  Christ  be  built  or 
established ;  not  merely  continued.  Now,  as  to  what  my 
brother  said  yesterday  about  the  directions  given  in  the 
eighteenth  chapter  of  Matthew:  "If  thy  brother  tres- 
pass against  thee tell  it  to  the  Church."      I  need 

only  say,  this  kingdom  was  being  set  up,  and  these  in- 
structions were  for  the  government  of  the  Church  when 
properly  organized.  The  gospel,  in  its  first  development, 
was  gradually  unfolded,  and  these  directions  were  pre- 
paratory for  the  guidance  of  Christians,  after  Jesus 
Christ  should  ascend  to  the  right  hand  of  the  Majesty 
on  high.     The  brother  surely  understands  this. 

Again  :  all  those  baptized  on  the  day  of  Pentecost, 
and  all  the  Jews  baptized  at  any  time,  were  members 
of  the  Jewish  Church  before  baptism,  and  became  mem- 
bers of  the  Christian  Church  after  baptism.  Now,  my 
hearers,  take  a  candid  view  of  this  subject.  If  a  man- 
child  among  the  Jews  was  not  circumcised,  he  was  to 
be  cut  off.  They  all  had  been  circumcised,  and  hence 
they  were  all  members  of  the  Jewish  Church.  And  the 
brother  says  (I  think  he  will  "take  that  back,"  or  say, 
'*I  did  not  exactly  mean  that")  that  on  the  day  of  Pen- 
tecost 3,000  were  added  to  the  Church.  According  to 
his  theory,  were  they  not  all  members  of  the  Church 
already  ?  If  baptism  had  taken  the  place  of  circum- 
cision, and  the  two  Churches  were  the  same,  what  need 
had  they  of  a  second  initiation  ?  And  yet  we  find  the 
apostles  going  forth  in  the  Jewish  Church.^  to  establish 
another  Church.      If  I  were  to  go  into  the  Methodist 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  203 

Church,  and  endeavor  to  establish  a  Baptist  Church, 
you  would  say,  that  I  did  not  recognize  the  Methodist 
Church  and  the  Baptist  Church  as  the  same.  Eut, 
mark  you,  the  apostles  go  forth  to  establish  a  neiv 
Church,  and  of  whom  ?  According  to  the  hypothesis  of 
the  brother,  to  establish  it  of  those  who  were  ah'eady 
members  of  the  same  Church.  Was  there  ever  such  an- 
other absurdity? 

Another  objection  to  this  theory  is,  that  no  moral 
qualification  was  requisite  for  membership  in  the  Jew- 
ish Cliarch — none  at  all ;  all  that  were  bought  with 
their  money,  or  born  in  their  house,  regardless  of  age  or 
character,  w^ere  entitled  to  receive  circumcision,  and  be- 
came members  of  the  Jewish  Church.  Now,  Saul  of 
Tarsus  was  once  breathing  out  threatenings  and  slaugh- 
ter against  the  Church.  He  had  been  circumcised,  and 
was  consequently  a  member  of  the  Jewish  Church. 
Saul  became  converted,  a  changed  man,  and  w^as  bap- 
tized. The  brethren  were  doubtful  about  receiving  him, 
which,  however,  they  did,  after  they  were  satisfied  of 
his  conversion  and  baptism.  Now,  was  Paul  a  member 
of  the  same  Church  after  baptism  as  before  ?  Paul 
says,  he  verily  thought  he  was  doing  God  service,  while 
he  was  persecuting  the  Church  (as  many  seem  to  think 
to  this  day).  But  now  he  becomes  a  converted  man, 
and  submits  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  and  yet  is, 
according  to  the  brother's  theory,  in  the  same  Church — 
receives  two  "  seaW^  of  the  same  covenant,  two  *'  signs 
of  regeneration,"  and  two  rites  of  initiation  into  the  same 
Church!  I! 

[Time  expired.] 


204  DEBATE    ON    THE 


MR.  COULLING'S  SIXTH  REPLY. 

Mr.  CouLLiNG ;  My  Brother  Massey  seems  to  be  ex- 
ceedingly anxious  to  make  me  responsible  for  all  the 
books  written  by  Methodists.  He  does  not  know  how,  in 
the  name  of  reason,  you  can  get  at  the  doctrines  of  a 
Church,  unless  you  go  to  the  standards  of  the  Church. 
Now,  I  do  not  know  that  anybody  looks  upon  Thomas 
0.  Summers'  book  upon  baptism  as  a  standard,  critically 
speaking.  We  have  standard  works :  Watson's  Theological 
Institutes  is  a  standard  work  in  the  Church ;  Watson's 
Dictionary  is  also  a  standard  work.  But  even  in  those 
works,  I  suppose,  you  will  find  doctrines  about  which 
people  will  differ.  Thomas  0.  Summers  writes  a  book 
upon  baptism.  Some  of  his  friends  go  to  him  and  say, 
"  You  had  better  publish  it."  He  has  not  the  money  him- 
self— for  Methodist  ministers  generally  do  not  deal  much 
in  that  article — and  he  goes  to  the  publishing  house 
and  gives  them  the  copyright ;  and  they  publish  it,  be- 
cause they  think  it  is  a  very  good  book,  and  will  meet 
some  errors.  I  confess  that,  so  far  as  I  now  understand 
Thomas  0.  Summers,  I  am  willing  to  stand  up  to  what 
he  says. 

The  brother  read  froi^  Mr.  Wesley's  tract  again,  and 
wishes  to  hold  us  responsible,  and  hold  me  responsible, 
as  representing  the  Church  here,  for  everything  that  Mr. 
We3ley  says  in  that  tract.  And  he  does  so,  why  ?  Be- 
cause that  tract,  as  he  finds  from  the  preface,  has  been 
substituted  in  the  place  of  a  work  upon  baptism  by  a  man 
of  the  name  of  Edwards.  They  thought,  probably,  that 
Mr.  Wesley's  tract  conveyed  more  of  truth,  and  less  of 
what  is  objectionable,  than  that  of  Edwards.     In  pub- 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  205 

lishing  the  tracts  compiled  before  1812  with  the  Dis- 
cipline, they  accordingly  put  Mr.  Wesley's  tract  in  place 
of  Mr.  Edwards'.     That  is  the  whole  of  it. 

1  think  that  everything  that  he  says  about  the  Dis- 
cipline can  be  answered  here.  He  read  to  you  our 
excellent  and  beautiful  baptismal  service  for  children.  I 
ask  you  if  there  is  a  particle  of  baptismal  regeneration 
in  it  ?  I  get  down  upon  my  knees,  and  pray  the  bless- 
ing of  God  upon  the  little  child,  and  it  is  baptismal  re- 
generation. Oh,  no !  he  says ;  but  the  fact  that  I  pray 
that  ics  carnal  nature  may  be  taken  out  of  it,  presup- 
poses that  it  has  a  carnal  nature,  and  is  in  contradiction 
to  my  former  position.  Is  my  brother,  in  the  middle  of 
the  nineteenth  century,  about  to  embrace  the  heresy  of 
Socinius  and  Arian?  That  is  their  heresy.  Now,  we 
are  constantly  taught  that  these  little  children  were  con- 
taminated by  the  fall ;  but  as  it  took  place  without  their 
co-operation,  and  as  they  were  brought  passively  into 
this  condition,  the  benefits  of  the  atonement  of  Christ 
are  conferred  upon  them  passively.  And  we  pray  that 
w^hen  these  children  shall  grow  up,  and  these  evils  are 
developed,  the  spirit  of  G-od  may  eradicate  them.  A 
very  excellent  prayer,  a  good  prayer.  And  I  have  no 
doubt  my  brother  prays  that  for  his  children.  Because 
he  believes  his  children  are  safe  now,  does  he  never  in- 
voke the  blessing  of  God  upon  them  ?  that  his  spirit 
will  lead  them  aright  ?  That  is  all  that  we  do — every- 
thing that  this  baptismal  service  does.  I  appeal  to  you 
who  know  it,  and  have  heard  it,  and  been  familiar  with 
it  all  your  days,  is  it  not  too  late  in  the  day  to  bring  an 
accusation  of  this  kind  against  a  Church  that,  if  it  has 
distinguished  itself  fdr  anything  in  the  world,  it  is  for 


206  DEBATE    ON    THE 

battling  against  this  whole  army  of  errors  about  bap- 
tism, no  matter  whether  it  concerns  the  subject  or  na- 
ture of  baptism. 

He  appeals  to  you  to  know  if  you  will  let  leaders 
throw  a  mist  over  your  eyes.  Do  you  know  any  one 
who  is  trying  to  do  it  ?  Who  does  so  ?  And  who  are 
you,  that  you  can  be  thus  easily  mystified  ?  A  very 
nice  compliment,  verily,  to  the  intelligence  of  those  about 
whom  it  is  said.  T  bring  you  what  the  Bible  says.  If 
there  is  any  mist  about  that,  I  do  not  perceive  it.  The 
mist  is  somewhere  else. 

It  was  very  soundly  asserted  this  morning,  upon  very 
high  authority,  that  baptism  originated  about  the  mid- 
dle of  the  third  century.  This  evening,  another  author- 
ity, introduced  with  the  highest  sort  of  compliments, 
steps  back  just  one  hundred  years,  and  proves  to  you,  if 
the  authority  is  worth  anything,  if  his  own  witness  is 
reliable,  that,  so  far  from  its  originating  in  the  middle 
of  the  third  century,  it  was  w^ell  established  in  the  mid- 
dle of  the  second  century.  About  what  time  was  that  ? 
One  hundred  years,  or  a  little  more,  after  the  people 
died  who  have  conversed  with  the  apostles.  That  is 
carrying  it  right  low  down,  as  far  as  history  is  concerned. 
You  will  recollect  that  the  very  first  man  who  ever  wrote 
history,  brought  it  up  to  425 — Eusebius,  who  died  445. 
In  the  very  introduction  to  his  history,  he  says :  "  I  am 
travelling  an  untrodden  path."  Eusebius  collects  mat- 
ter, and  shows  that  infant  baptism  was  well  established 
two  hundred  and  fifty  years  after  Christ  came,  and  one 
hundred  years  after  the  very  people  who  associated  with 
the  apostles  died. 

The  gentleman  was  right  anxious,  this  morning,  to 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  207 

know  when  that  council  was  held.  I  could  not  recol- 
lect then.  But  I  turn  to  a  book,  which  I  think  is  worthy 
of  some  respect :  I  do  not  know  what  the  people  may 
think.  But  I  do  not  see  what  temptation  a  man  can 
have,  in  making  out  a  catalogue  from  history,  to  fabri- 
cate it.  And  in  the  chronological  list  of  the  principal 
councils  mentioned  in  this  book — and  there  is*an  alpha- 
betical list  of  the  same  councils — I  find,  that  the  council 
under  Cyprian  was  held  256.  Now  that  is  within  about 
one  hundred  years  of  the  very  period  when  people  lived 
who  had  conversed  with  the  apostles.  Those  sixty-six 
bishops,  learned  men,  say  that  it  had  never  been  known, 
from  the  days  of  the  apostles,  that  infants  were  excluded 
from  baptism. 

Mr.  Massey:  Have  you  the  authority,  stating  that 
they  made  that  statement  ? 

Mr.  CouLLiNG :  I  read  you  the  authority  this  morning, 
from  Cave,  and  I  will  read  it  again.  I  do  not  recollect 
precisely  the  language  of  it : 

"  From  the  persons  ministtring  we  proceed  to  the 
persons  upon  whom  it  was  conferred,  and  they  were  of 
two  sorts,  infants  and  adult  persons.  How  far  the  bap- 
tizing of  infants  is  included  in^ur  Saviour'' s  institution, 
is  not  my  work  to  dispute ;  but  certainly,  if  in  contro- 
verted cases  the  constant  practice  of  the  Church,  and 
those  who  immediately  succeeded  the  apostles,  be  (as 
no  man  can  deny  it  is)  the  best  interpreter  of  the  laws 
of  Christ,  the  dispute,  one  would  think,  should  be  at  an 
end  :  for  that  it  always  was  the  custom  to  receive  the 
children  of  Christian  parents  into  the  Church  by  bap- 
tism, we  have  sufficient  evidence,  for  the  greatest  part 
of  the  most  early  writers,  Irenceus,  Tertullian,  Origen, 


208  DEBATE    ON    THE 

Cyprian^  &c.,  whose  testimonies  I  do  not  produce,  be- 
cause I  find  them  collected  by  others,  and  the  argument 
thence  so  forcible  and  conclusive,  that  the  most  zealous 
opposers  of  infant  baptism  know  not  how  to  evade  it — " 

And  they  cannot,  except  by  flat  denial : 

— "  The  testimonies  being  so  clear,  and  not  the  least 
shadovv^  that  I  know  of,  in  those  times,  of  anything  to 
make  against  it.  There  was,  indeed,  in  Cyprian'' s  time, 
a  controversy  about  the  baptizing  of  infants,  not  ivhether 
they  ought  to  be  baptized  (for  of  that  there  was  no 
doubt),  but  concerning  the  time  when  it  was  to  be  ad- 
ministered, whether  on  the  second  or  thinly  or  whether, 
as  circumcision  of  old,  to  be  deferred  till  the  eighth  day. 
For  the  determining  of  which,  Cyprian^  sitting  in  coun- 
cil with  sixty -six  bishops,  writes  a  synodical  epistle  to 
Fidus^  to  let  him  know  that  it  was  their  universal  judg- 
ment and  resolution,  that  the  mercy  and  grace  of  God 
was  not  to  be  denied  to  any,  though  as  soon  as  he  was 
born :  concluding  that  it  was  the  sentence  of  the  coun- 
cil, that  none  could  be  forbidden  baptism  and  the  grace 
of  God  :  which,  as  it  was  to  be  observed  and  retained 
toward  all  men,  so  much  the  more  toward  infants  and 
new-born  children." 

If  that  is  not  conclusive,  right  to  the  point,  I  cannot 
conceive  what  is  :  I  do  not  understand  what  is.  So  that, 
in  accordance  with  this,  the  practice  of  the  early  Church, 
from  the  days  of  the  apostles,  confirms,  beyond  success- 
ful contradiction,  that  the  commission  did  not  restrict 
the  admission  of  children  into  the  Church  by  baptism. 

Just  at  this  point,  according  to  my  notes,  the  brother 
insisted  upon  it,  that  I  had  not  removed  a  peg  that  he 
had  put  down.     Now,  the  only  peg  that  1  have  known 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM,  209 

him  to  stick,  in  this  whole  controversy,  is  one  with  which 
I  agree  with  him  most  fully :  that  when  you  come  to 
baptize  an  adult  person,  you  must  see  that  he  is  fit  to 
he  baptized.  He  has  proved,  most  conclusively,  that  I 
ought  not  to  baptize  every  infidel,  or  introduce  into  my 
Church,  or  recognize  as  a  Christian,  an  outrageously- 
wicked  sinner.  Now,  if  you  will  reflect  a  moment, 
you  will  recollect  this :  that  at  the  time  these  old  histo- 
rians refer  to,  the  apostles  did  not  preach  to  civilized 
people,  as  we  do,  for  the  most  part ;  but  to  heathen 
nations,  pagans,  men  who  worshipped  false  gods.  And 
the  simple  reception  of  truth,  as  a  matter  of  theory,  was 
not  to  be  regarded  as  a  sufficient  reason  for  baptizing 
them.  For  instance,  if  the  apostles  were  preaching  at 
this  day,  they  would  not  receive  those  who  believed 
the  gospel,  as  everybody  on  this  ground  does.  And 
when  they  went  to  nations  who  knew  nothing  about  the 
gospel,  and  developed  to  them  the  truth  of  the  gospel, 
and  this  man  and  that  man  said, ''  I  believe  Jesus  Christ 
was  the  Son  of  G-od,"  that  would  not  be  enough.  Hence 
those  catechumens  who  were  to  be  instructed.  And  when 
they  found  that  they  were  proper  subjects,  and  had  em- 
braced the  religion  of  the  Bible,  not  theoretically,  but 
in  heart,  they  were  regarded  as  fit  subjects  for  baptism. 
Now,  I  do  not  want  to  remove  that  peg :  I  want  it 
fastened  ;  it  is  good  doctrine.  And  he  has  stopped 
short  of  the  point  between  us,  and  I  have  no  doubt  he 
W'ill  fail  of  reaching  that  point.  For,  although  he  has 
said,  once  or  twice,  that  he  has  proven  it,  I  ask  you  to 
decide  that.     It  is  for  you,  and  not  for  me,  to  say. 

He  then  repeats  that  infant  baptism  casts  a  reflection 
upon  infant  salvation.     I  think  that  was  his  idea,  if  not 


210 


DEBATE    ON    THE 


his  words.  I  again  say,  that  if  we  taught  that  salva- 
tion depended  upon  baptism,  and  we  baptized  a  child  to 
confer  salvation  upon  it,  the  argument  would  be  an  un- 
answerable one,  that  in  baptizing  him,  we  admitted 
that  he  was  not  safe,  and  we  tried  to  save  him  by  bap- 
tism. I  again  ask  you,  if  you  ever  understood  any 
Pedobaptist  as  teaching  any  such  doctrine,  unless  it  was 
an  extreme  high-churchman  of  the  Church  of  England, 
and  probably  a  few  extreme  Puseyites  in  this  country. 
The  whole  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  as  far  as  I  am 
conversant  with  it — at  least,  in  Virginia — rejects  that 
doctrine.  And  while  I  said  before,  there  is  a  sense  in 
which  baptismal  regeneration  is  used,  it  is  not  in  the 
sense  in  which  we  use  the  term  regeneration  in  our  or- 
dinary conversation  upon  the  subject. 

And  there  is  a  dilemma  into  which  he  thinks  we  have 
gotten,  and  which  is  to  him  a  very  serious  matter. 
And  I  have  no  doubt  it  would  be,  if  what  he  anticipates 
and  seems  so  seriously  to  fear  should  ever  take  place. 
And  take  place  it  will,  I  have  no  more  doubt  of  it  than 
I  have  that  I  stand  here.  And  the  horrible  sprite  that 
rises  before  his  mind,  and  causes  his  spirit  to  shudder, 
is  prophetic  of  what  will  be,  and  that  before  long  I  have 
no  doubt.  And  that  is,  that  all  people  will  be  baptized 
in  infancy,  and  there  will  be  no  believer's  baptism,  and 
away  will  go  the  Church,  that  believes  nothing  but 
believer's  baptism.  What  a  catastrophe  !  What  a  sad 
end  that  will  be  !  I  hope  to  live  to  see  it.  However,  I 
cannot  say  that,  for  it  is  said  that  hope  is  made  up  of 
expectation  and  desire  ;  and  I  cannot  expect  that. 
But  I  have  no  doubt  that  the  day  is  coming  when  peo- 
ple will  understand  their  duty,  and  dedicate  their  chil- 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  211 

dren  to  G-od  in  early  baptism,  and  say  to  the  world  that 
those  children  belong  to  Jesus  Christ ;  and  act  in  ac- 
cordance with  what  they  say  in  that  sacred  rite.  And 
then  believer's  baptism  will  have  no  further  place  in  the 
world  ;  for  the  plain  and  simple  reason,  that  there  will 
no  longer  be  rebels  against  G-od,  with  gray  hairs  upon 
their  heads,  and  there  will  no  longer  be  occasion  for 
believer's  baptism.  Jesus  Christ  has  said  "  that  the  day 
shall  come  when  all  men  shall  see  the  Salvation  of  God, 
when  Christ  shall  sway  the  sceptre  over  a  world  re- 
deemed. When  that  day  shall  come,  the  gospel  of  the 
Son  of  G-od  w^ill  have  accomplished  its  glorious  mission 
among  the  children  of  men,  and  the  Kingdom  of  our 
G-od  shall  be  established  in  the  top  of  the  mountains- 
He  may  well  be  alarmed  at  an  anticipation  of  that 
kind  ;  but  it  does  not  annoy  and  alarm  Pedopaptists 
much. 

He  marvels  at  my  familiarity  with  the  Old  Testament, 
and  my  want  of  familiarity  with  the  ^New  Testament. 
I  do  not  know — I  have  not  given  myself  the  trouble  to 
count  ;  but  I  verily  believe  1  quoted  quite  as  many 
verses  of  Scripture  out  of  the  New  Testament,  as  I  did 
out  of  the  Old  Testament.  But  what  of  import  in  that  ? 
Is  the  Old  Testament  to  be  discarded  ?  Does  it  not  suit 
his  purpose  ?  And  is  a  reflection  to  be  cast  upon  me, 
because  I  derive  authority  from  the  very  source  from 
which  my  blessed  Lord  derived  it  ?  He  taught  out  of 
the  Prophets,  and  out  of  the  Psalms,  and  out  of  the 
books  of  Moses,  did  he  not  ?  There  was  no  other  Scrip- 
ture in  his  day.  He  said  unto  them  :  "  Search  the 
Scriptures,  for  in  them  ye  think  ye  have  eternal  life  : 
they  are  they  that  have  testified  of  me."     I  can  prove 


212  DEBATE    ON    THE 

things  from  the  Old  Testament  as  wel'l  as  from  the  New 
Testament.  And  these  passages  from  the  Old  Testa- 
ment were  so  bothering,  that  the  only  way  to  get  out  of 
it  was  to  say  :  "Well,  it  is  not  New  Testament:  it  is 
Old  Testament."  Well,  I  believe  in  the  Old  Testament : 
I  believe  in  the  Bible,  from  Genesis  to  Malachi,  and  from 
Matthew  down  to  Revelations  ;  all  of  it  is  Grod's  Book. 
And  whatever  God  teaches,  whether  in  Ezra,  Malachi, 
Isaiah,  Mark,  Romans,  Corinthians, — anywhere,  it  is 
my  Lord's  book,  and  1  get  the  truth  from  that.  I  am 
vastly  familiar  with  the  Old  Testament,  he  says.  Well, 
I  am  glad  I  know  somethmg. 

Again,  he  says,  I  made  a  slight  blunder,  and  he  says 
I  did  it  innocently,  too.  He  says  I  quoted  from  the 
second  chapter  of  Acts,  that  there  were  added  to  the 
Church  three  thousand  souls  ;  and  that  I  made  a  mis- 
take, that  the  word  church  was  not  in  the  passage,  but 
that  I  would  like  to  have  it  in  it,  and  therefore  I  sup- 
plied it.  That  would  be  a  blunder  indeed,  when  I  had 
the  book  before  me.  I  will  give  you  the  word  in  the 
original.  The  English  Scriptures  read  thus — "Praising 
God,  and  having  favor  with  all  the  people  ;  and  the 
Lord  added  to  the  Church,  daily,  such  as  should  be 
saved."     In   the  original    it    says — "  The    Lord    added 

Mr.  Massey  :  Was  that  the  passage  you  quoted  ? 

Mr.  CouLLiNG  :  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Massey:  You  said — about  three  thousand  soul 
were  added  to  the  Church. 

Mr.  CouLLiNG  :  This  is  the  verse  I  had  marked.  Peo- 
ple will  make  mistakes,  sometimes,  and  I  do  not  pre- 
tend to  be  infallible.     But  I  do  not  think,  verily,  that  I 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  213 

made  a  mistake  here,  and  I  think  I  can  satisfy  myself 
of  that  in  a   moment.     [Looking  at  his  book  of  notes.] 

Mr.  Massey  :  It  was  in  your  comments  on  the  bap- 
tism upon  the  day  of  Pentecost. 

Mr.  CouLLiNG  :  I  might  have  said  that  in  the  debate. 
I  have  it  here  in  my  notes — Acts  ii.  47, — under  this 
leading  head — 'Hhe  Lord  Jesns  speaks  of  the  Church  as 
already  existing." 

He  now  comes  to  a  review  of  my  argument.  I  wish, 
just  here,  to  state  the  various  positions  that  I  assumed, 
and  that  I  attempted  to  establish.  My  first  position  is : 
that  when  the  Church  of  Grod  was  organized,  infants 
received  the  sign  and  seal  of  their  title  to  the  benefits  of 
that  Church,  or  of  the  covenant ;  and  Grod  has  never 
repealed  that  act  that  entitled  them  to  receive  it.  That 
was  the  first  proposition  I  laid  down.  I  attempted  to 
prove  that  by  showing  to  you,  that  the  promise  made  to 
Abraham,  saying,"  In  thy  seed  shall  ail  nations  of  the 
earth  be  blessed,"  was  recognized  by  the  inspired  writers, 
by  the  blessed  Redeemer  himself,  as  being  the  source 
and  the  origin  of  the  gospel ;  that  it  was  called  the  gos- 
pel of  the  Son  of  God.  Now,  my  brother  has  stated 
one  difficulty  in  the  way  of  that.  And  that  difficulty 
he  finds  in  what  ?  He  finds  it  in  the  fourth  chapter  of 
Galatians,  twenty-fourth  and  twenty-fifth  verses.  Now, 
I  wish  to  read  them,  and  see  if  there  is  the  slightest 
conflict.  And  if  there  be,  that  I  am  not  responsible  for  it, 
I  think  I  can  show  very  clearly.  He  says  that  he  thinks 
that  St.  Paul  knew  a  great  deal  more  about  these  things 
than  I  do  ;  and  I  most  earnestly  and  heartily  agree  with 
him.  And  St.  Paul's  teachings  upon  this  subject,  I  think, 
agree  with  me  precisely,  and  are  in  conflict  with  him. 
In  the  tv/enty-fourth  verse,  St.  Paul  says : 


214  DEBATE    ON    THK 

"  Whioh  things  are  an  allegory,  for  these  are  the  two 
covenants;  the  one  from  the  Mount  Smai,  which  gen - 
dereth  bondage,  which  is  Agar.  For  this  Agar  is  Mount 
Sinai  in  Arabia,  and  answereth  to  Jerusalem  which  now 
is,  and  is  in  bondage  with  her  children.  But  Jerusalem 
which  is  above  is  free,  which  is  the  mother  of  us  all." 

Now,  here  are  two  covenants  made  with  Abraham. 
One  made  when  ?  Made  yonder,  430  years  before  the 
giving  of  the  law.  And  this  very  same  passage  says 
that  that  covenant  made  at  Sinai  could  not  annul  the 
former  covenant.  So  far  there  is  no  conflict  between 
the  two.  God  makes  a  covenant  with  Abraham,  grant- 
ing him  a  special  promise  :  "In  thy  seed  all  nations  of 
the  earth  shall  be  blessed."  (rod  sees  fit,  430  years 
afterward,  to  get  the  people  together,  and  give  them  a 
body  of  laws,  carrying  out  the  covenant,  and  over  and 
above,  a  ritual — St.  Paul  says  it  was  a  very  onerous  one — 
all  carrying  out  the  very  same  covenant,  however.  Yet 
Paul  speaks  of  the  covenant  made  with  Abraham  as  iden- 
tical with  the  covenant  made  at  the  present  time,  and 
one  in  existence  at  that  time. 

The  brother  commented  upon  the  covenant  of  redemp- 
tion and  the  covenant  of  circumcision.  Now,  I.  am  at 
a  loss  to  know  the  difference  ;  I  cannot  conceive  it :  they 
are  identically  the  same  covenant.  The  brother  tells 
us  that  circumcision — and  he  quoted  St.  Paul  to  prove 
it — was  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  that  faith  that 
Abraham  had  before  he  was  circumcised — was  intended 
to  illustrate  and  show  forth  that  very  righteousness,  the 
result  of  which  was  the  redemption  of  Abraham.  And 
yet  he  says  it  was  a  different  covenant.  One  is  simply 
an  effect  and  consequence  of  the  other ;  and  he  extends 
and  makes  two  of  what  is  simply  one. 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  215 

Again :  he  introduces  a  prophecy  from  Daniel,  and 
endeavors  to  make  the  impression  that  Daniel's  predic- 
tion, that  in  a  certain  age  of  the  world  God  would  set 
up  a  kingdom,  is  in  direct  conflict  with  the  train  of  ar- 
gument that  I  have  introduced.  I  just  wish  to  know 
if  that  appears  so  to  the  mind  of  any  of  these  persons  ? 
Is  there  any  conflict  here  ?  God  has  introduced  into 
the  world  the  glorious  system  of  redemption,  and  he 
predicts  that  in  a  certain  period — a  period  that  is  shown 
forth  in  high  metaphor  and  trope — that  the  people  who 
emhrace  this  redemption  should  he  collected  together. 
And  he  calls  it  a  kingdom ;  and  somewhere  else  it  is 
called  a  Church,  and  the  people  of  the  Lord,  and  half 
a  dozen  other  epithets,  hut  all  tending  to  the  same  thing. 
"When  it  is  varied,  they  say  it  is  something  else.  It  is 
the  same  thing.  So  far  from  there  heing  a  conflict,  it 
is  an  ahsolute  and  positive  fulfilment.  The  Lord  has 
done  identically  what  Daniel  said  he  would  do.  He  has 
not  destroyed  either  covenant,  or  introduced  another. 
If  he  has,  let  my  brother  show  it.  "Where  is  the  cove- 
nant in  existence  now,  that  diflers  from  the  covenant 
that  God  made  with  Abraham  ?  If  there  is  one,  let 
him  show  the  difference  between  the  two.  Let  him 
come  face  to  face  with  Paul,  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Ro- 
mans and  the  Galatians,  and  let  him  there  correct  this 
master  teacher  in  Israel.  And  when  he  knows  more 
than  the  very  chiefest  of  the  apostles,  then  this  audience 
will  believe  him. 

He  refers  to  Matthew  xvi.  beginning  with  the  16th 
verse. 

"  And  Simon  Peter  answered  and  said,  Thou  art  the 
Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God.     And  Jesus  answered 


216  DEBATE    ON    THE 

and  said  unto  him,  Blessed  art  thou,  Simon  Bar-jona  : 
for  flesh  and  blood  hath  not  revealed  it  unto  thee.  But 
my  Father  which  is  in  heaven.  And  I  say  also  unto 
thee,' That  thou  art  Peter,  and  upon  this  rock  I  will 
build  my  church  ;  and  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  pre- 
vail against  it.  And  I  will  give  unto  thee  the  keys  of 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  :  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt  bind 
on  earth,  shall  be  bound  in  heaven  :  and  whatsoever 
thou  shalt  loose  on  earth,  shall  be  loosed  in  heaven." 

Well,  I  do  not  know  what  exposition  he  would  give 
of  the  text.  But  this  much  I  think  you  will  all  agree 
to  :  that  if  it  is  to  be  interpreted  according  to  Protes- 
tantism, it  means  that  Peter's  confession  of  faith  was 
the  foundation  upon  which  the  Church  of  G-od  is  built : 
that  that  was  the  corner-stone  ;  that  that  was  the  sum 
and  substance  of  it,  and  it  does  not  conflict  at  all  with 
my  position,  not  a  jot  or  tittle.  It  does  not  come  in  the 
slightest  degree  (that  I  can  for  my  life  see)  in  opposi- 
tion to  what  I  have  said. 

Another  difficulty  that  he  states  is,  that  J  have  con- 
tended that  the  Churches  are  the  same  ;  and  yet  on  the 
day  of  Pentecost  the  very  people  who  were  received  into 
the  Church  by  baptism,  were,  according  to  me,  already 
in  the  Church  ;  and  being  already  in  the  Church  by  the 
rite  of  circumcision,  with  what  consistency  can  they 
now  be  put  into  the  Church  by  the  rite  of  baptism. 
"Well,  I  confess  that  that  does  seem  more  like  a  diffi- 
culty than  anything  that  I  have  heard,  touching  the 
subject ;  really  that  does  seem  more  like  a  difficulty, 
while  it  is  in  fact  no  difficulty  at  all.  Now,  mark  this : 
here  was  the  gospel  dispensation  in  full  force.  These 
people  who  had  rejected  Christ,  had  rejected  him  until 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  217 

he  was  crucified,  now  came  out  for  the  first  time  and 
received  him.  Before  that  time  they  were  the  opposers 
of  Christ.  A  new  dispensation  had  come  in.  How 
were  they  to  get  into  the  Church,  except  by  baptism  ? 
Let  him  answer  this  question,  when  he  gets  up  to  make 
his  argument.  Why  were  not  the  five  hundred  brethren 
that  saw  the  Saviour,  baptized  ?  Why  were  not  the 
seventy-two  that  were  sent  out,  baptised  ? 

Mr.  Masshy  :   Do  you  deny  that  they  were  baptized  ? 

Mr.  CouLLiNG  :  Will  you  tell  me  when  and  where 
they  were  baptized  ?  Where  were  those  baptized,  who 
were  the  disciples,  w^hen  they  cast  lots  for  Matthias  ? 
AVhen  and  where  were  the  twelve  apostles  baptized  with 
Christian  baptism  ?  Let  him  answer  those  questions. 
They  had  been  introduced  into  the  Church  of  Christ  by 
circumcision.  Christ  came  to  his  own.  They  were  his 
own  people.  The  others  rejected  him  until  a  new  dis- 
pensation dawned  upon  the  world  ;  and  when  that  came, 
they  living  u,nder  it  must  conform  to  it.  But  that  is  not 
the  only  answer.  My  good  brother  seems  to  have  for- 
gotten some  things  that  he  has  read  in  this  precious 
book.  I  will  refresh  his  memory  ;  "  stir  up  his  pure 
mind  by  way  of  remembrance."  Now,  let  me  read  you 
two  or  three  verses  from  the  second  chapter  of  Acts. 
He  thought  it  marvellous  that  I  did  not  know  in  what 
part  of  the  Bibile  the  baptism  of  Lydia  was  to  be  found. 
And  is  it  not  marvellous,  that  here,  in  this  second  chap- 
ter of  Acts,  he  should  not  have  seen  this  ? 

"  And  there  were  dwelling  at  Jerusalem  Jews,  devout 
men,  out  of  every  nation  under  heaven,  ....  and 
Parthians,  and  Medes,  and  Elamites,  and  the  dwellers  in 
Mesopotamia,  and  in  Judea  and   Cappadocia,  in  Pontus 

10 


218  DEBATE    ON    THE 

and  Asia,  Phrygia  and  Pamphylia,  in  Egypt,  and  in 
the  parts  of  Lybia  aLout  Cyrene,  and  strangers  of 
Rome,  Jews  and  proselytes,  Cretes  and  Arabians." 

All  these  were  gathered  at  Jerusalem.  All  those  that 
were  converted  were  not  necessarily  Jews,  and  might 
not  have  been  circumcised.  They  were  collected  there 
at  Jerusalem.  But  admit  that  all  who  were  convened 
were  Jews.  They  were  under  a  new  dispensation,  and 
were  baptized  for  the  very  reason  that  Saul  of  Tarsus 
was  baptized,  when  he  professed  faith  in  Christ ;  be- 
cause he  had  not  complied  with  the  terms  of  his  circum- 
cision ;  and  therefore,  under  the  new  dispensation  he 
had  to  receive  the  rite  of  baptism.  That  is  an  answer 
to  the  whole  matter,  and  there  is  not  a  particle  of  diffi- 
culty in  the  way. 

[Time  expired.] 


MR.  M ASSET'S  SEVENTH  ADDRESS. 

Mr.  Massey  :  It  is  not  difficult  to  perceive  that  a  mis- 
take may  very  honestly  be  made  in  an  extemporaneous 
address.  And  I  accept  the  brother's  explanation,  that 
he  had  in  his  view  the  forty-seventh  verse  of  the  sec- 
ond chapter  of  Acts,  when  he  quoted  from  that  passage 
which  said  that  three  thousand  w^ere  added  to  the77i  on 
the  day  of  Pentecost.  He  need  not  have  brought  up  his 
G-reek  Testament  to  show  that  ecclesia  means  church; 
for  the  word  church  was  not  there.     It  reads  : 

"  Then  they  that  gladly  received  his  word  were  bap- 
tized ;  and  the  same  day  there  were  added  unto  them 
about  three  thousand  souls.  And  they  continued  stead- 
fastly in  the  apostles'  doctrine  and  fellowship,  and  in 
breaking  of  bread,  and  in  prayers." 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  219 

I  will  now  show  you  an  organization  taking  place 
after  the  day  of  Pentecost. 

''And  fear  came  upon  every  soul ;  and  many  won- 
ders and  signs  were  done  by  the  apostles.  And  all  that 
believed  were  together,  and  had  all  things  in  common  ; 
and  sold  their  possessions  and  goods,  and  parted  them  to 
all  men,  as  every  man  had  need.  And  they,  continuing 
daily  with  one  accord  in  the  temple,  and  breaking  bread 
from  house  to  house,  did  eat  their  meat  with  gladness 
and  singleness  of  heart,  praising  Grod,  and  having  favor 
with  all  the  people.  And  the  Lord  added  to  the  Church 
daily  such  as  should  be  saved." 

This  is  a  very  different  view  of  the  subject  from  that 
which  was  presented  by  the  gentleman. 

The  brother  wants  me  to  tell  him  when  the  five  hun- 
dred brethren  and  the  seventy- two  disciples  were  bap- 
tized. If  he  will  deny  that  they  ivere  baptized^  it  will 
then  be  time  enough  for  me  to  reply  to  him.  "When  he 
takes  that  position,  or  when  1  meet  him  upon  the  sub- 
ject of  the  Lord's  Supper,  I  will  tell  him  when  they 
were  baptized.  I  will  give  him  a  hint  now.  In  Acts 
i.  21,  it  is  said :  "  Of  these  men  who  have  companied 
with  us  all  the  time  that  the  Lord  Jesus  went  in  and 
out  among  us,  beginning  from  the  baptism  of  John,"  &c. 
He  will  find  no  difficulty  when  he  turns  to  it,  in  deciding 
when  these  men  were  baptized.  But  what  has  that  to 
do  with  the  present  subject  ? 

A  word  with  regard  to  the  work  from  which  he 
has  quoted,  the  work  by  Dr.  Cave,  published  in  1698. 
"We  find  here  a  Pedobaptist^  writing  for  the  purpose 
of  sustaining  infant  baptism.  And  he  asserts  that 
certain    fathers    taught    this    doctrine,    but    does    not" 


220  DEBATE    ON    THE 

present  the  statements  of  these  fathers,  or  any  evidence 
to  prove  his  bare  assertion.  And  yet  the  brother  tells 
you,  ''^  here  is  history  V^ — this  man  and  that  man,  says 
he,  taught  infant  baptism.  But  he  does  not  give  you 
their  language,  or  any  testimony  from  them.  It  is  sheer 
nonsense  to  call  this  work  a  Church  history.  It  is 
wholly  unworthy  the  appellation.  I  deny  his  assump- 
tions— for  they  are  but  assumptions.  He  cannot  show 
a  trace  of  infant  baptism  in  the  writings  of  the  fathers, 
earlier  than  250  years  after  Christ.  He  speaks  of  this- 
council  of  sixty-six  bishops,  which  assembled  to  decide 
at  what  age  infants  might  be  baptized.  Infant  baptism 
was  such  a  novelty,  just  beginning  to  be  introduced, 
that  nothing  was  understood  about  it ;  hence  the  call 
for  this  council,  which  assembled  in  256  :  and  to  deter- 
mine what  ?  A  question  with  regard  to  an  institution 
which  had  been  established  by  Jesus  Christ,  and  prac- 
tised by  his  Church  for  more  than  two  hundred  years  ? 
No,  sir !  but,  to  settle  a  question  with  regard  to  a  prac- 
tice which  had  just  been  foisted  upon  the  Churchy  along 
with  many  other  corruptions  of  that  day. 

I  will  simply  read  the  dedication  of  this  book,  and 
leave  it : 

"  To  the  Right  Reverend  Father  in  God,  Nathaniel, 
Lord  Bishop  of  Oxford,  and  Clerk  of  the  Court  to  His 
Majesty : 

*'  My  Lord  :  When  I  first  designed  these  papers  should 
take  sanctuary  at  your  lordship's  patronage,  the  Hebrew 
proverb  presently  came  into  my  mind.  Keep  close  to  a 
great  man,  and  men  will  reverence  thee.  I  knew  no 
better  way  (next  to  the  innocency,  and,  if  it  may  be, 
'usefulness  of  the  subject  I  have  undertaken)  to  secure 
myself  from  the  censures  of  envy  and  ill-nature,  than 


J 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  221 

by  putting  myself  under  your  protection,  whose  known 
evcpvaj  the  sweetness  and  obligingness  of  whose  temper, 
is  able  to  render  malice  itself  candid  and  favorable." 

He  seemed  to  have  had  the  idea  himself  that  the  state- 
ments he  was  about  to  make  would  not  pass  current, 
unless  he  got  "  close  to  a  great  man,"  and  to  think  that 
by  this  he  would  lead  men  to  the  conclusion  that  he 
wanted  to  lead  them  to.  This  is  partial  testimony ^ 
brought  by  the  gentleman  from  his  own  side  of  the  ques- 
tion. The  author  is  simply  arguing  the  question  to 
sustain  his  theory — not  giving  facts  as  an  historian.  It 
is  not  history. 

I  wonder  if  the  brother  intended  to  make  the  impres- 
sion upon  the  minds  of  this  audience,  that  any  of  those 
baptized  upon  the  day  of  Pentecost  were  not  Jews? 
Did  you  intend  to  do  that?  Your  manner  of  reading 
that  narrative,  and  your  comments  upon  it,  justify  that 
conclusion.  He  does  not  answer.  And,  according  to 
his  theory,  that  the  Bible  being  silent  upon  the  subject, 
justifies  infant  baptism,  his  silence  is  to  be  taken  as  con- 
sent. Now,  he  ought  to  know  that  the  Urst  introduc- 
tion of  the  gospel  among  tlie  Gentiles  was  when  it  was 
carried  to  the  house  of  Cornelius.  His  argument  is, 
that  these  men,  having  been  gathered  from  every  nation 
that  is  mentioned  there,  may  not  have  been  circumcised ; 
and  in  that  way  the  difficulty  I  had  presented  might  be 
removed.  He  will  find,  however,  that  he  has  placed 
himself  in  a  worse  difficulty  than  before.  He  knows 
these  men  were  Jews. 

■  I  object  to  the  position  that  the  Jewish  Church  and 
the  Christian  Church  are  the  same,  in  the  next  place, 
because  of  the  great  hostility  of  the  former  to  the  latter. 


222  DEBATE    ON    THE 

We  even  find  the  very  high  priests  of  the  Jewish  Church 
clamoring  for  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  stirring  up 
the  multitude  to  demand  the  crucifixion  of  Jesus  and 
the  liberation  of  Barabbas.  Does  this  look  anything 
like  identity  of  the  two  Churches  ?  Take  these  two 
arguments  together,  and  they  will  satisfy  any  unbiased 
mind  that  the  Christian  Church  and  the  Jewish  Church 
were  two  entirely  different  organizations  ;  not  only  were 
they  under  different  dispensations  and  different  cove- 
nants— the  one  the  covenant  of  circumcision,  and  the 
other  the  covenant  of  redemption — but  they  were  com- 
posed of  entirely  different  subjects — the  one  deadly  hos- 
tile to  the  other. 

His  next  argument  upon  this  subject  was,  that  bap- 
tism had  taken  the  place  of  circumcision  ;  and  that,  as 
infants  were  admitted  into  the  Jewish  church,  by  cir- 
cumcision, they  ought,  therefore,  to  be  admitted  into  the 
Christian  Church  by  baptism. 

I  object  to  this  hypothesis,  first :  that  circumcision 
was  a  permanent  mark  in  the  j^esA,  distinguishing  the 
Jews  from  all  other  nations.  Now,  mark  you :  God 
had  declared  his  purpose  to  send  a  Eedeemer,  and  that 
Abraham  should  be  the  father  of  the  Messiah-^that 
through  him  he  should  come.  Then  it  was  narrowed 
do^n  to  Jacob  ;   then  to  Judah ;   then  to   David,  &o. 

Among  other  arrangements,  a  mark  of  distinction 
was  instituted,  by  which  the  descendants  of  Abraham 
should  be  distinguishable  from  all  other  nations.  And 
as  long  as  there  was  any  danger  of  their  mingling  with 
other  nations,  this  was  preserved.  Does  the  sprinkling  a 
few  drops  of  water  upon  an  infant  give  a  mark  by  which 
you  can  distinguish  him  from  those  who  have  not  had 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  223 

water  sprinkled  upon  them  ?  Wherever  the  Jew  goes 
throughout  the  world,  he  can  be  known  as  a  Jew  to 
this  day.  But  baptism  leaves  no  distinguishing  mark 
observable  even  in  the  Christian. 

"While  the  Jews  sojourned  in  the  wilderness  for  forty 
years,  the  rite  of  circumcision  \yas  neglected.  There 
was  no  danger  of  their  mingling  with  other  nations 
then,  and  there  was,  therefore,  no  necessity  for  their 
being  circumcised.  If  you  will  turn  to  Joshua,  5th 
chapter  and  5th  verse,  you  will  find  that  the  rite  of 
circumcision  had  been  neglected  from  the  time  they 
came  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt.  And  only  two  of  the 
men  who  had  been  circumcised  before  leaving  Egypt, 
entered  the  land  of  Canaan.  But  now,  as  they  were 
about  entering  into  the  land  of  Canaan,  where  there  was 
danger  of  their  mingling  with  other  nations,  Joshua 
was  directed  of  God  to  circumcise  all  the  males  born  in 
the  wilderness,  for  they  had  not  been  circumcised  during 
the  forty  years  they  had  been  in  camp. 

Again,  I  object  to  the  gentleman's  hypothesis,  that 
circumcision  and  baptism  are  seals  of  the  same  covenant, 
securing  the  same  or  similar  blessings,  upon  the  ground 
that  circumcision  was  desis^ned  to  secure  to  those  who 
received  it,  temporal  blessing.  There  was  the  promise 
of  the  land  of  Canaan  ;  a  rich  heritage  ;  an  earthly 
blessing  ;  an  earthly  possession.  In  four  hundred  and 
thirty  years  from  the  call  of  Abraham,  his  descendants 
were  to  return  to  enjoy  this  land.  The  iniquity  of  the 
Amorites  was  not  then  complete,  and  the  Jews  were  to 
sojourn  in  Egypt  for  four  hundred  years.  After  this 
they  were  to  return  and  enjoy  this  land.  Does  baptism 
secure  to  you  temporal  blessings  ;  an  earthly  Canaan, 


224 


DEBATE    ON    THE 


or  any  blessings  of  that  character  ?     There  is  neither 
identity  nor  analogy  here. 

I  object  to  it  again,  because  circumcision  required  no 
moral  qualification.  Neither  membersliip  in  the  Jewish 
church  nor  circumcision  required  any  moral  qualifica- 
tion. The  gentleman  says  he  would  not  baptize  an  un- 
believing adult.  But  the  Jew  would  circumcise  an 
unbelie-ving  adult.  As  soon  as  a  man  became  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Jewish  confederacy,  all  his  male  servants — 
"  all  that  were  bought  with  his  money,  or  born  in  his 
house,"  old  and  young,  were  to  be  circumcised.  "Would 
the  gentleman  be  willing  to  baptize  all  the  servants, 
old  and  young,  of  any  man  here,,upon  the  faith  of  their 
master  ?  If  not,  then  he  must  not  contend  that  bap- 
tism has  taken  the  place  of  circumcision  ;  or  that  they 
occupy  a  similar  position. 

I  object  to  it  again,  upon  the  ground,  that  under  the 
covenant  of  circumcision,  males  only  were  to  be  cir- 
cumcised, whether  children  or  servants.  Ishmael  and 
Esau,  with  all  their  male  posterity  and  servants,  were 
circumcised,  regardless  of  their  age  or  their  character. 
By  what  authority  does  the  gentleman  baptize  females, 
if  baptism  takes  the  place  of  circumcision  ?  If  his  hy- 
pothesis be  correct,  he  has  transcended  his  authority. 

I  object  to  it  again,  upon  the  ground  that  the  same 
persons  were  both  circumcised  and  baptized.  Mr.  Conl- 
ling  seeks  to  evade  the  force  of  this  difficulty,  by  ask- 
ing how  those  individuals  who  had  rebelled  against 
God,  could  be  brought  back  into  the  Church  of  Christ  ? 
If  a  man  is  once  in  his  church,  and  then  acts  so  as 
to  justify  his  exclusion,  hoio  does  he  receive  him  back 
again?     Does   he    baptize   him    again?     Or   does   he 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  225 

receive  him  upon  his  confession  of  his  wrong,  and  his 
promise  of  amendment  ?  Tlie  gentleman  should,  upon 
the  same  grounds,  when  infants,  who  have  been  baptiz- 
ed, grow  up  to  maturer  years,  and  show  themselves  to 
be  rebels  against  Grod,  rebaptize  them  when  they  be- 
come converted.  See,  how  he  has  caught  himself  in  his 
own  snare  !  Again  (while  I  think  of  it)  I  will  notice 
another  remark  of  the  gentleman.  He  says,  that  when 
all  infants  are  baptized,  there  will  be  no  gray-haired 
rebels  against  God,  Is  not  that  baptismal  regenera- 
tion? Are  there  no  gray -haired  rebels  against  G-od, 
who  were  baptized  in  infancy  ?  Are  they  all  made  chil- 
dren of  Grod — new  creatures,  by  being  baptized  in  in- 
fancy ?  Are  they  all  regenerated  ?  If  not,  when  those 
'^  gray -haired  rebels"  become  converted  and  come  to 
him,  will  he  rebaptize  them  ?  If  not,  his  whole  argu- 
ment is  worthless.  Paul  was  "  circumcised  on  the 
eighth  day,''"'  and  yet,  when  he  was  converted  he  was 
baptized.  And  all  the  males  baptized  among  the  Jews, 
had  been  circumcised.  Two  seals  to  the  same  cove- 
nant !  two  rites  to  bring  them  into  the  same  Church  ! 
and  yet  these  rites  are  the  same  !      What  sophistry  I 

Now,  I  must  say  to  the  brother,  that  there  is  a  vast 
difference  between  a  man's  being  so  familiar  with  the 
Old  Testament,  that  he  can  quote  texts  from  it,  and  his 
understanding  the  texts  when  quoted.  The  whole  of 
his  argument  has  been  based  upon  a  wrong  theory. 
His  premises  being  unsound.^  his  conclusions  must  of 
necessity  be  false.  He  has  misconceived  the  ivhole 
ground.  He  has  formed  an  incorrect  idea  of  the  cove- 
nants, and  all  that  flows  from  them ;  and  hence  his 
vjhole  theory  is  wrong.     He  may  quote  all  the  passages 


226  DEBATE    ON    THE 

in  the  word  of  Grod,  from  Grenesis  to  Revelations  ;  and 
unless  he  understands  them  better  than  he  has  shown 
here,  it  will  be  productive  of  no  good. 

I  object  to  his  theory  again,  upon  the  ground,  that  in 
the  fifteenth  chapter  of  Acts,  we  find  a  council  of  the 
"  apostles  and  elders,  with  the  whole  Church,"  called 
together  to  consider  the  question,  whether  believers 
among  the  Gentiles  must  be  circumcised.  Had  Elder 
Coulling  been  there,  he  might  have  saved  them  much 
labor.  He  would  have  said  to  them  :  ''  You,  apostles 
and  elders,  have  failed  to  comprehend  the  point :  Do  you 
not  know  that  baptism  has  come  in  the  place  of  cir- 
cumcision ?  You  need  not  trouble  yourselves  at  all 
about  circumcision :  those  who  have  received  baptism^ 
have  received  circumcision,  and  have  thus  obeyed  Moses' 
law,  and  the  gospel  at  the  same  time."  But  this  coun- 
cil did  not  so  understand  it.  They  did  not  have  any 
such  view  of  the  subject.  Here  was  the  time,  if  ever, 
for  them  to  present  that  view,  if  they  entertained  it. 
The  brother  says,  these  disciples  here  annulled  circum- 
cision. Yet,  after  this  council  adjourned,  Paul  circum- 
cised Timothy.  Why,  Brother  Paul!  you  must  be  a 
very  refractory  sort  of  man  I  your  brother  apostles  have 
annulled  circumcision  (and  perhaps  you  were  there 
too),  and  you  go  on  to  administer  the  rite  they  have  an- 
nulled !  Circumcision  annulled  I  The  Jews  to  this  day 
continue  its  practice  ;  but  Jesus  Christ  never  intended 
that  the  Christian  Church  should  have  any  connection 
with  it ;  at  least,  there  is  no  such  connection  found  in 
the  word  of  G-od. 

Having  shown  you  that  the  premises  of  the  brother 
are  all  incorrect,  it  follows,  as  a  natural  consequence, 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  27 

that  Ills  conclusions  are  false  :  they  cannot  be  sustained. 
He  has  built  his  argument  upon  false  premises,  and 
hence  the  whole  fabric  must  fall  to  the  ground.  The 
New  Testament  law  of.  the  subject  1  have  shown  you. 
He  has  endeavored  to  present  an  exception  to  the  gene- 
ral rule  by  introducing  circumcision.  I  have  shown 
you  that  that  supposed  exception  is  utterly  ivithout 
foundation.  And  now  he  consoles  himself  with  the 
thought  that  there  is  some  gloomy  foreboding  arising  in 
my  mind  relative  to  the  future  baptism  of  all  infants, 
which,  he  says,  w^ill  be  the  end  of  beiiever^s  baptism. 
Well,  I  do  not  know  what  the  gentleman's  imagination 
has  depicted  before  his  mind.  1  should  not  wonder  if 
he,  like  old  father  Wesley,  has  seen  ghosts  and  hobgob- 
lins rising  before  him.  For  he  discovers  that  his  most 
intelligent  brethren  acknowledge  that  infant  baptism  is 
not  found  in  the  word  of  G-od.  There  are  now  con- 
tinual complaints,  in  their  own  journals,  of  the  neglect 
of  infant  baptism  among  their  oivn  members.  Yery 
few,  compared  with  former  times,  are  now  baptized. 
Very  many  Methodists,  Presbyterians,  and  others,  admit 
that  they  do  not  believe  in  infant  baptism,  and  that  it 
takes  away  from  the  child  the  privilege  of  deciding  for 
himself,  when  he  becomes  a  believer  in  Jesus  Christ. 
If  he  becomes  a  believer  in  after  years,  he  must  do  one 
of  two  things  :  either  neglect  his  duty  to  be  baptized 
as  a  believer  in  Christ  Jesus,  or  turn  away  from  all  his 
family  connections,  to  another  denomination  that  will 
administer  the  ordinance  to  him  rightly. 

I  think  the  arguments  offered  upon  both  sides  will 
present  the  conclusion  to  the  minds  of  all  present,  who 
are  willing  to  let  truth  have  its  full  force,  that  the  word 


228  DEBATE    ON    THE 

of  God  does  not  sanction  any  other  baptism  than  that 
of  believers  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  I  shall  then 
submit  this  question,  so  far  as  my  argument  is  concern- 
ed, for  your  own  further  action.  It  is  not  for  me  to  de- 
termine what  shall  be  the  course  pursued  by  any  one 
else.  I  can  only  present  to  you  the  truth  as  it  is  in 
Christ  Jesus,  and  then  leave  every  one  of  you  to  act 
upon  that  truth  as  you  will  loish  to  have  acted,  when 
you  stand  at  the  judgment  bar  of  God.  "  Let  every 
man  be  persuaded  in  his  own  mind."  But  let  that  mind 
receive  all  the  light  of  divine  truth  upon  the  subject. 

The  effort  has  been  made  by  my  opponent  to  produce 
the  impression,  that  I  have  endeavored  to  present  some- 
thing else  rather  than  the  Bible  ;  that  I  have  not  given 
that  the  most  prominent  place  ;  and  he  talks  about  his 
believing  in  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  I  Who 
questions  that  they  are  just  as  much  the  word  of  God 
as  the  New  Testament  ?  Who  questions  that  they  are 
to  be  believed,  and  to  be  conformed  to,  as  far  as  con- 
formity to  them  is  required  under  the  Gospel  dispensa- 
tion 7  The  brother,  I  suppose,  has  forgotten  where  I 
commenced.  I  thought  I  had  begun  far  enough  back  in 
the  Old  Testament  Scriptures,  when  I  took  you  to  the 
very  first  interview  that  God  had  with  man,  after  his 
fall  from  his  primeval  estate  ;  and  traced  on  the  regular 
flow  of  promises  of  the  Messiah,  from  that  time  until, 
"  when  the  fulness  of  the  time  had  come,  God  sent 
forth  his  Son,  made  of  a  woman,  made  under  the  law, 
to  redeem  them  that  were  under  the  law."  "  The  Iqjlv 
was  our  schoolmaster  to  bring  us  to  Christ."  We  are  now 
permitted  to  go  to  the  Messiah  himself;  to  look  to  him; 
not  through  types  and  shadows  ;  not  to  be  governed  by 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  229 

old  rituals  that  simply  prefigured  the  Saviour.  But,  to 
look  to  a  Saviour  that  has  come^  who  has  given  himself 
a  ransom  for  our  sins  ;  who  has  expired  upon  the  cross  ; 
has  lain  in  the  tomb  ;  has  risen  from  the  dead  ;  has 
given  his  commission  to  his  disciples  ;  and  has  reascend- 
ed  to  the  right  hand  of  the  Majesty  on  high.  And  we, 
as  his  disciples,  find  it  obligatory  upon  us  to  go  forth 
and  "  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name 
of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;" 
"  preaching  the  gospel  to  every  creature,"  with  the  as- 
surance that  "  he  that  believeih  and  is  baptized  shall 
be  saved :  he  that  believeih  not  shall  be  damned^ 
[Time  expired.] 


MR.  COULLING'S  SEVENTH  REPLY. 

Mr.  CouLLiNG :  I  thought  I  had  been  right  clear  in 
affirming  that  the  baptism  of  those  on  the  day  of  Pen- 
tecost, though  they  had  been  sealed  with  circumcision, 
had  been  rendered  necessary  from  the  fact  that  a  new 
dispensation  had  been  introduced.  Jesus  Christ  had  then 
risen  from  the  dead,  and  that  was  the  very  first  time 
that  his  apostles  acted  under  the  great  commission  that 
he  gave  to  them  to  go  and  baptize  people.  Now,  here  are 
a  set  of  Jews  and  Gentiles — whatever  they  may  be :  I 
don't  care  what — a  set  of  men  who  have  rejected  Christ, 
who  have  refused  to  yield  to  him  ;  some  of  whom,  per- 
haps, lingered  about  the  cross  at  the  time  that  he  bowed 
his  head  and  said,  "  It  is  finished ;"  and  consented  to 
his  death.  And  now  the  apostles  get  up  and  preach  the 
gospel  to  these  people,  and  they  befieve.  How  are  they 
then  to  come  out  and  identify  themselves  with  the  cause 


230  DEBATE    ON    THE 

of  Christ,  except  by  conforming  to  the  requisition  of  Christ 
himself?  So,  where  is  the  difficulty  that  the  gentleman 
sees  ?  And,  in  all  that  he  says  about  baptism  having 
taken  the  place  of  circumcision,  where  is  the  difficulty 
that  he  has  put  in  the  way  of  it  ?  I  propose  to  notice 
some  that  he  seems  to  think  are  difficulties  in  the  way. 

He  objects  to  it,  he  says,  because  the  high  priests 
clamored  for  the  blood  of  the  blessed  Jesus.  He  there- 
fore argues  that  the  Jewish  Church  could  not  have  been 
anything  like  the  Christian  Church  ;  that  the  covenant 
that  God  made  with  Abraham  must  have  been  a  differ- 
ent covenant  from  that  which  was  put  into  exercise  and 
enjoyed  after  Christ  rose  from  the  dead.  And  why  ? 
Because  the  Jews  rejected  Christ.  "Well :  St.  Paul  says 
it  was  the  same  covenant ;  St.  Peter  says  it  was  the 
same  Church ;  the  blessed  Saviour  recognizes  the  exist- 
ence of  the  Church.  Those  that  had  received  Christ 
did  not  receive  baptism  after  Christ  rose  from  the  dead, 
according  to  any  account  that  we  have,  because  Christ 
came  to  his  own.  Those  that  received  him,  he  received 
as  his.  Those  that  did  not  receive  him  then,  when  they 
did  receive  him,  received  the  sign  and  seal  of  the  new 
covenant.  The  fact  that  the  high  priests  rejected  Christ, 
was  what  might  have  been  expected.  And  it  is  no 
argument,  not  one  jot  or  tittle,  against  what  I  have 
asserted.  I  cannot  imas^ine  what  connection  that  can 
have  with  it. 

Again  :  he  thinks  that  circumcision  was  not  a  title  to 
spiritual  benefits,  but  a  title  to  the  promised  land. 
Then,  of  course,  everybody  that  received  circumcision 
had  a  right  to  the  promised  land.  And  then. I  wonder 
what  became  of  the  Ishma elites  and  the  Edomites  that 
received  circumcision  ? 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  231 

Mr.  Massey  :  Did  they  receive  any  spiritual  blessings  ? 

Mr.  CouLLiNG :  They  received  circumcision,  and  they 
were,  and  continue  yet,  excluded  from  the  promised 
land. 

Mr.  Massey  :  Does  the  gentleman  claim  that  those  to 
whom  he  refers  received  spiritual^lessings  after  circum- 
cision ? 

Mr.  CouLLiNG :  I  am  not  arguing  that  question,  but 
meeting  the  argument  which  the  gentleman  himself 
urges,  that  circumcision  was  intended  to  give  a  title  to 
the  promised  land. 

Mr.  Massey:  I  amwrilling  that  the  gentleman  should 
introduce  new  matter  in  the  final  negative,  if  he  will 
allow  me  to  reply. 

Mr.  CouLLiNG :  I  do  not  intend  to  say  anything  more 
upon  that  subject,  except  just  to  meet  the  gentleman's 
own  argument :  nothing  else.  According  to  that,  I  hold 
that  circumcision  was  not  a  title  to  the  promised  land  : 
there  is  no  doubt  about  that. 

I  have  already  brought  forward  this  argument — an 
argument  that  he  has  not  met:  that  the  apostle  him- 
self has  distinctly  stated  that  circumcision  was  a  sign 
and  seal  of  righteousness.  I  have  brought  forward  pas- 
sage after  passage  from  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New 
Testament  Scriptures,  showing  that  circumcision  involved 
an  obligation  to  keep  the  law  of  G-od;  that  it  was  to 
signify  and  represent  the  circumcision  of  the  heart,  and 
was  a  title  to  spiritual  benefits.  Is  not  that  the  teach- 
ing of  Paul  in  Romans,  G-alatians,  or  wherever  the 
doctrine  is  taught  at  all.  The  idea  of  circumcision  not 
being  a  seal  to  spiritual  benefits,  is  probably  as  queer  a 
ught  as  I  ever  heard  of. 


2i2  DEBATE    ON    THE 

He  thinlvs  that  I  have  gotten  into  a  terrible  difficulty, 
and  that  I  have  certainly  fallen  into  an  egregious  blun- 
der in  contending  for  infant  baptism,  because,  in  meet- 
ing his  first  objection,  that  if  everybody  was  baptized  in 
infancy,  believer's  baptism,  in  his  sense  of  the  term, 
would  be  entirely  destroyed.  I  went  on  to  show  that, 
according  to  my  theory,  people  would  just  arrive  at  that 
state,  finally,  that  God  had  promised  to  bring  the  world 
and  Church  into.  Suppose  there  be  gray-headed  men 
who  were  baptized  in  infancy,  who  are  gray-headed  sin- 
ners. Can  you  not  find  gray-headed  sinners  who  have 
been  baptized  in  adult  age  ?  Are  all  who  have  been 
baptized  in  adult  age  all  that  they  ought  to  be  ?  Are 
there  not  very  many  people  who  have  been  baptized  by 
pouring,  sprinkling,  and  immersion,  when  they  were 
adults,  that  are  not  a  whit  better  after  baptism  ?  I  did 
not  state,  nor  did  my  words  justify  the  deduction,  that 
because  children  were  baptized  they  were  therefore  made 
just  what  they  ought  to  be.  But  I  held,  that  when  the 
parent  does  his  duty  to  his  child,  and  recognizes  his  obli- 
gations to  his  child,  and  all  the  benefits  that  the  gospel 
confers  upon  the  world  and  upon  his  child,  and  recollects 
that  the  promise  of  Grod  is  not  only  to  him  but  to  his 
children,  and  then  gives  him  the  seal  of  the  covenant, 
and  acts  according  to  his  obligation  to  his  child,  if 
anything  will  bring  about  the  millennium,  that  will  do 
it.  And  the  time  will  come  when  the  prophecy  of  the 
Bible  will  be  fulfilled,  and  men  will  everywhere  see  the 
salvation  of  God.  And  what  denomination,  what  class 
of  people,  stands  the  best  chance  to  urge  on  and  bring 
about  that  desirable  condition  ?  Those  who  take  the 
young  child  from  its  infancy,  and  try  to  indoctrinate  it 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  233 

into  the  principles  and  spirit  of  the  gospel  of  Jesus 
Christ,  or  those  who  do  not  recognize  their  lot  and  part 
in  the  covenant  in  this  way  ?  I  am  willing  to  leave  that 
to  as  intelligent  an  audience  as  this.  If  there  is  any 
import  in  the  external  form,  it  is  to  exhibit  his  confi- 
dence in  this  thing.  Then  the  parent  that  recognizes 
this  is  much  more  apt  to  recognize  the  other  than  those 
who  do  not.  I  do  not  intend  to  cast  any  reflection  upon 
my  brethren,  and  say  that  they  do  not  recognize  their 
duty.  And  I  call  you  to  witness  that  I  do  not,  and  have 
not,  cast  any  imputation  upon  the  motives  of  those  who 
differ  from  me.  I  am  only  trying  to  present  the  truth, 
and  I  think  I  have  done  it.  And  I  think  that,  so  far 
from  my  premises  being  wrong,  I  have  demonstrated 
the  correctness  of  my  position  to  the  satisfaction  of  this 
audience.  The  brother  admits  that  if  my  premises  are 
right,  my  conclusions  are  very  good  indeed.  And  I  have 
no  doubt  that  my  premises  and  conclusions  are  admitted 
by  the  most  of  you  very  cordially.  I  am  glad  that  he 
thinks  that  something  I  say  and  something  that  I  do  are 
right. 

He  affirms  that  in  the  estimation  of  the  intelligent, 
infant  baptism  is  going  out  of  repute  ;  that,  in  our  Pedo- 
baptist  papers,  a  great  many  complaints  are  coming  up 
that  parents  do  not  have  their  children  baptized.  "Well, 
that  is  complained  of  sometimes.  And  I  think  that  it  is 
a  very  just  complaint,  and  one  that  is  very  easily  ac- 
counted for.  I  came  into  this  district* two  and  a  half 
years  ago.  I  was  asked  by  my  brethren  at  Louisa  Court- 
house to  deliver  a  sermon  upon  the  subjects  and  modes 
of  Christian  baptism.  And  I  was  told  by  two  or  three 
persons  who  heard  me  then,  "  We  have  been  members  of 


234  DEBATE    ON    THE 

the  Church  a  long  time,  and  this  is  the  first  time  in  our 
lives  we  ever  heard  a  Methodist  preach  upon  baptism." 
I  was  invited  then  to  preach  at  different  points.  And 
from  that  time  to  this  I  have  never  made  an  appointment 
myself  to  preach  a  sermon  on  baptism.  Generally,  two 
or  three  weeks  before  I  have  gone  to  my  appointments,  I 
have  received  a  request  to  preach  upon  the  subject  of  bap- 
tism. I  received  a  letter,  two  or  three  days  ago,  from  a 
man  whom  I  do  not  know,  asking  me  to  preach  a  sermon 
upon  the  subject  of  baptism.  And  I  received  letters 
from  brethren  who  have  said,  I  could  judge  of  the  pro- 
priety of  preaching  on  the  subject  myself,  when  I  Avould 
get  to  the  place.  But  1  have  never  preached  a  sermon  on 
the  subject  of  baptism,  but  I  have  been  told  by  some  that 
they  never  heard  a  sermon  on  that  subject  before  from  a 
Methodist.  And  how  many  times  have  these  very  Meth- 
odists, who  object  to  infant  baptism,  heard,  again  and 
again  that  the  vScriptures  did  not  warrant  it,  while  they 
have  never  heard  anything  to  the  contrary.  I  know  that 
whenever  I  have  preached  upon  this  subject,  I  have 
been  asked,  and  my  brethren  upon  the  circuit  have 
been  asked,  to  baptize  their  children.  Since  this  con- 
troversy began,  I  have  baptized  one.  And  when  this 
subject  is  understood,  and  the  Bible  view  of  the  subject 
is  presented,  you  will  no  longer  see  these  complaints  in 
our  papers. 

Mr.  Massey  :  Have  you  baptized  a  child  since  we 
have  been  discussing  the  subjects  of  baptism  ? 

Mr.  CouLLiNG  :  I  said,  since  this  controversy  began. 
I  do  not  wonder  at  the  complaints  ;  not  at  all.  It  would 
be  a  very  strange  thing,  when  heretofore  the  discussion 
of  this  subject  has   been  all  on  one  side,  if  there  were 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  235 

not  a  good  many  people,  who  have  not  the  time  to  study 
the  subject  for  themselves,  who  should  entertain  some 
doubts  about  it.  But  I  will  venture  to  say,  that  when 
this  subject  is  discussed  and  understood,  these  complaints 
will  cease.  It  is  one  of  the  most  natural  things  in  the 
w^orld  :  it  addresses  itself  to  the  best  feelings  of  the  hu- 
man heart.  No  parent  can  help  feeling  a  deep  interest 
in  his  child.  And  when  that  parent  is  told  that  that 
child  is  a  participant  in  the  very  covenant  that  embraces 
him — that  the  promise  is  unto  him  and  to  his  children, 
there  is  no  doubt  that  that  parents'  heart  will  leap  w^ith 
gladness,  and  that  he  will  accept  the  terms.  » 

There  is  another  objection  that  he  urges,  that  I  do 
not  exactly  see  the  force  of.  He  says  that  it  deprives 
the  child  of  his  natural  rights.  Natural  rights  ?  What 
natural  rights  ?  God  gives  to  me,  providentially,  the 
care  of  a  child.  I  honestly  believe  a  certain  theory,  or 
a  certain  set  of  doctrines ;  and  I  would  be  recreant  to 
my  duty  and  to  my  trust,  if  I  did  not  teach  that  child , 
what  I  thought  was  right.  But,  upon  that  principle,  I 
ought  not  to  teach  my  child  anything  in  the  world  upon 
the  subject  of  religion,  as  it  would  deprive  the  child  of 
his  natural  rights,  but  let  him  grow  up  untamed  and 
wild  as  the  partridge  on  the  mountains.  Now,  when  I 
come  to  teach  that  child,  what  am  I  to  tell  him  ?  Why, 
what  I  really  think  and  believe  to  be  right.  Then  bring 
up  a  child  in  the  way  he  should  go,  and  when  he  is  old 
he  will  not  depart  from  it.  You  will  not  find  much  dif- 
ficulty on  the  part  of  your  children,  if  you  teach  them 
aright.  Point  them  to  the  Bible  :  show  them  what  G-od 
says  in  that  book,  and  there  will  be  no  trouble  with 
them,  no  disturbances  in  their  minds.     You  will  find, 


236  DEBATE    ON    THE 

that  while  depriving  them  of  their  natural  rights,  it  will 
only  be  a  natural  right  to  do  wrong,  or  think  wrong,  in 
some  way :  at  least  according  to  your  ideas  of  right  and 
wrong. 

Now,  just  in  conclusion,  I  wish  to  say  this  much.  I 
have  introduced  for  your  consideration  what  I  honestly 
believed  to  be  a  correct  view  of  this  subject.  I  have 
introduced  an  argument  that  I  believe  to  be  perfectly 
conclusive.  Let  me  epitomize  it.  I  have  attempted  to 
prove  to  you,  and  if  plain,  distinct  passages  of  Scripture 
can  prove  it,  I  think  I  have  done  so,  that  the  covenant 
that  God  entered  into  with  Abraham  was  perpetuated 
under  different  dispensations  until  the  dispensation  of 
the  gospel  was  ushered  in ;  that  it  is  spoken  of  by  the 
inspired  writers  as  identically  the  same.  "When  that  cove- 
nant was  instituted,  God  gave  the  command  that  children 
should  receive  the  sign  and  seal  of  the  blessing  of  that 
covenant.  It  has  not  been  repealed,  there  is  no  place  in 
the  Bible,  or  in  the  history  of  the  Church,  where  children 
are  formally  expelled  from  it.  There  is  one  thing  cer- 
tain, then,  and  my  good  brother  has  not  made  the  con- 
trary appear,  that  although  I  might  be  mistaken — and 
though  I  say  that,  I  do  not  believe  I  am,  I  do  not  intend 
to  admit  it  or  concede  it  in  the  slightest  degree — one 
thing  is  certain :  I  am  guilty  of  no  violation  of  the  law 
of  God  in  baptizing  infants.  And  another  thing  is  quite 
certain,  that  if  believer's  baptism  is  administered  because 
the  person  who  believes  is  a  proper  character  to  receive 
it,  children  are  proper  characters  to  receive  it ;  for  before 
believers  can  be  fit  to  receive  baptism,  they  must  be- 
come as  little  children.  Another  thing  is  quite  certain, 
that  the  little  child  is  said  by  the  blessed  Saviour  to  be 


i 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  237 

fit  for  heaven  ;  and  if  so,  I  am  s\ire  he  has  the  right,  and 
certainly  the  fitness,  to  receive  the  sign  of  that  fitness 
for  the  benefits  conferred  upon  him  by  the  gospel.  Is 
there  anything  irrational  in  that  ? 

I  think  I  have  shown  you  by  the  very  clearest  and 
strongest  arguments  that  can  be  introduced,  that  the 
divine  Redeemer  and  his  apostles  spoke  of  the  Church 
as  already  in  existence.  The  Saviour  is  giving  direc- 
tions to  his  disciples.  He  says  :  ''  If  thy  brother  tres- 
pass against  thee" — ''  go  and  tell  it  to  the  Church." 
There  is  nothing  anticipative  in  that ;  but  plain  direc- 
tions for  present  action,  at  that  very  moment  of  time. 
And  had  any  one  of  them  had  a  controversy  at  that 
time  with  his  brother,  this  would  have  been  the  direc- 
tion by  which  to  govern  himself.  I  think  that  is  plain 
from  the  passage.  And  what  does  Peter  say  ?  He  says, 
that  the  blessed  Saviour  was  with  the  ecclesia,  the 
Church  in  the  wilderness. 

Mr.  Massey  :  As  that  is  new  matter,  I  will  ask  the 
brother  if  he  claims  that  ecclesia  means  what  he  under- 
stands to  be  a  Christian  Church,  in  that  passage  ? 

Mr.  CouLLiNG :  That  is  a  different  question.  The 
gentleman  mooted  that  point,  and  I  have  been  waiting 
for  it  until  the  present  time.  I  made  that  quotation 
before. 

Mr.  Massey  :  It  is  well  known  by  every  G-reek  scholar, 
that  the  word  ecclesia  means  assembly. 

Mr.  CouLLiNG  :  Yery  well ;  I  will  not  debate  that 
point.  Many  of  you  will  recollect  that  that  is  the  very 
passage  I  quoted  from  the  Acts  of  the  apostles.  That 
is  not  all.  I  went  on  to  show  you  that  when  the  disci- 
ples started  out  to  preach,  they  baptized  adult  people,  as 


238  '  DEBATE    ON    THE 

has  been  proved  over  and  over  again,  no  doubt.  They 
baptized  them  after  they  repented  of  their  sins,  and 
after  they  believed  in  Christ.  No  doubt  about  that. 
And  then  they  baptized  households.  1  stated  in  refer- 
ence to  the  baptism  of  Lydia,  that  she  believed,  and 
w^ith  her  household  was  baptized.  My  good  brother 
quoted  the  40th  verse  of  that  chapter,  to  show  that 
there  were  brethren  there.  And  I  showed  you  that 
those  brethren  were  Brother  Luke  and  Brother  Timothy, 
who  had  gone  with  brothers  Paul  and  Silas,  and  lodged 
with  Lydia  at  her  especial  invitation.  When  brothers 
Paul  and  Silas  were  put  in  jail,  brothers  Luke  and 
Timothy  still  remained  at  Lydia's  house  ;  and  when 
Paul  and  Silas  came  out  of  the  jail,  they  went  to 
Lydia's  house  and  rejoiced  with  them.  That  is  a  per- 
fectly plain  and  simple  explanation  of  all  that.  If  that 
is  not  the  explanation,  then  there  were  persons  in  the 
house  of  Lydia  baptized  without  a  profession  of  faith  ; 
according  to  the  Scripture,  there  was  no  profession  of 
faith  except  by  Lydia.  Now,  as  I  do  not  believe  that 
the  apostles  ever  did  baptize  adult  people  without  a  pro- 
fession of  faith — because  my  good  brother  says  here 
distinctly  that  in  the  baptism  of  adults  they  should  be- 
lieve, and  I  admit  that — therefore,  infants  must  have 
been  baptized.  And  he  has  helped  me  to  that  conclu- 
sion right  nicely  by  his  own  arguments. 

Now,  therefore,  after  all  this,  and  the  patient  and 
quiet  manner  in  which  you  have  listened  to  it,  you  are 
all  prepared  to  make  your  own  decision  upon  the  subject. 
I  leave  the  matter  with  you.  If  you  agree  with  me, 
so  well,  and  so  good.  If  you  agree  with  my  brother 
Massey,  I  have  no  controversy  with  you :  none  in  the 


SUBJECTS    OF     BAPTISM.  239 

world.  I  am  glad  I  am  under  the  stars  and  stripes, 
that  I  can  worship  G-od  according  to  the  dictates  of  my 
own  conscience  ;  none  daring  to  molest  me  or  make  me 
afraid.  Thank  God,  I  have  never  been  afraid  of  any- 
body in  my  life.  I  have  been  afraid,  sometimes,  that  I 
should  be  doing  something  wrong  myself.  But  I  never 
saw  that  man  yet  I  was  afraid  of.  I  am  glad  the  laws 
of  my  country  protect  me,  and  permit  me  to  worship 
God  as  I  please.  And  I  am  glad  in  my  heart  of  hearts 
that  I  can  accord  the  same  privilege  to  others.  And  if 
I  could  get  you  to  think  with  me  in  any  other  way  than 
by  fair  argument,  I  should  hate  myself  for  it.  You  do 
not  forfeit  ray  respect  or  Christian  love,  by  differing 
with  me  on  this  or  any  other  subject.  Do  it  fearlessly 
and  honestly  with  all  your  heart,  and  the  more  earnestly 
you  carry  out  your  principles,  the  more  will  I  respect 
you. 

I  think  I  need  not  detain  you  a  moment  longer.  I 
leave  the  subject  with  you,  and  leave  you  in  the  hands 
of  a  good  Providence. 

[Close  of  the  Second  Day^s  Discussion.] 


240  DEBATE    ON    THE 


DEBATE  ON  THE  DESIG-N  OF  BAPTISM. 
Third  Dai/s  Discussion. 

Thursday,  July  12,  1860. 
MR.  MASSET'S   FIRST   ADDRESS. 

Mr.  Massey: — Messrs.  Moderators,  Ladies,  and  Gen- 
tlemen :  The  subject  that  claims  our  attention  to-day  is 
by  no  means  inferior,  in  point  of  importance,  to  either  of 
the  subjects  which  we  have  discussed  in  your  hearing. 
If  I  should  express  an  opinion  in  regard  to  their  relative 
merits,  I  should  say  that  this  was  of  the  first  impor- 
tance. The  reasons  ivhy  men  submit  to  the  ordinance 
of  baptism,  are.  as  a  matter  of  course,  questions  of  grave 
importance.  The  ^proposition  I  affirm  upon  this  subject 
is  this : 

"  Christian  baptism  is  designed  to  show  the  faith  of 
the  subject  in  the  death,  burial,  and  resurrection  of  Je- 
sus Christ :  as  the  procuring  cause  of  his  pardon  and 
salvation." 

All  who  desire  fellowship  with  Christians  are  required 
to  give  some  evidence  of  their  faith  in  the  death,  burial, 
and  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ.  To  claim  a  "bright  to 
Christian  associations  and  Christian  ordinances,  without 
any  recognition  of  our  obligations  to  the  author  of  Chris- 
tianity, would  be  wholly  inconsistent. 

There  are  two  parts  of  this  subject  that  claim  our 
attention  :  first,  the  element  used  ;  secondly,  the  act  per- 
formed ;  from  which,  placing  the  two  together,  the  de- 
sign may  be  determined.  Water,  the  element  used, 
fitly  represents  the  purification  of  those  who  are  plunged 
in  the  consecrated  stream,  and  readily  conveys  to  the 


DESIGN    OF    BAPTISM.  241 

mind  of  the  beholder  the  impression  that  he  who  sub- 
mits to  this  ordinance  acknowledged  himself  to  be  defiled, 
and,  therefore,  needed  to  be  cleansed.  In  the  second 
place,  that  he  professes  to  have  been  cleansed  by  the 
blood  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  appropriated  to  him  by 
faith.  These  are  the  ideas  conveyed  to  the  mind  of  the 
beholder  when  he  sees  an  individual,  upon  a  profession 
of  his  faith,  washed  in  the  element  referred  to. 

While  the  element  teaches  this  lesson,  the  act  per- 
formed and  submitted  to  shows  or  declares  the  faith  of 
the  subject  in  the  great  prominent  fundamental  truths 
of  the  gospel.  Those  truths  are,  that  "  Jesus  Christ 
died  for  our  sins ;  that  he  was  buried,  and  that  he  rose 
again  for  our  justification."  The  atonement  of  Jesus 
Christ  occupies  a  position  in  the  Christian  system  simi- 
lar to  that  occupied  by  the  sun  in  the  solar  sys- 
tem. It  is  the  great  centre  of  the  w^hole.  Christ  cruci- 
fied was  the  great  theme  of  apostolic  preaching.  This 
is  the  great  doctrine  or  truth  to  be  believed  and  relied 
upon  by  those  who  desire  the  benefits  of  the  atonement 
of  Jesus  Christ.  In  baptism  there  is  a  declaration  by 
the  subject,  who  comes  willingly^  cheerfully^  joyfully 
to  submit  to  it,  of  his  faith  in  these  great  ^.w^  important 
truths.  Baptism  declares  our  faith  in  the  death  of 
Christ,  and  our  claim  to  be  dead  with  him.  A  burial 
always  presupposes  a  death.  If  we  were  to  pass  by  a 
graveyard  and  see  a  body  being  lowered  to  its  last  rest- 
ing-place, we  might  ask  of  what  disease  that  individual 
died,  and  when  he  died  ;  but  we  would  never  ask  if  he 
loere  dead.  The  fact  that  we  beheld  those  who  loved 
him  most  tenderly,  committing  him  to  the  narrow  con- 
fines of  the  tomb,  would  be  conclusive  evidence  to  our 

11 


242  DEBATE    ON    THE 

minds  that  they  recognized  him  as  dead.  His  burial, 
then,  presupposes  his  death.  So,  in  the  ordinance  of 
baptism,  the  burial  of  the  individual  in  baptism  presup- 
poses that  he  claims  to  be  dead  to  sin — to  be  dead  with 
Christ.  And  he  evinces  that  by  being  buried  in  like- 
ness of  Ihe  burial  of  Christ. 

As  I  wish,  mider  the  circumstances  which  will  cer- 
tainly preclude  us  from  a  protracted  discussion  upon  this 
subject,  to  lay  the  basis  of  a  plain,  simple  argument 
upon  the  subject  so  clearly  that  I  shall  not  be  misunder- 
stood, it  will  be  necessary  for  me  very  briefly  to  show^ 
what  baptism  is,  to  satisfy  you  that  I  am  not  mistaken 
when  I  represent  baptism  as  the  figure  of  a  burial.  I 
claim  that  baptism  is  the  putting  the  subject  under 
water  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and 
of  the  Holy  Ghost.  I  claim  this  upon  the  ground  (the 
only  ground  that  I  shall  now  take),  that  baptizo,  the 
word  used  to  designate  the  ordinance,  means  to  dip,  to 
plunge,  to  inwierse. 

Mr.  CouLLiNG  :  Allow  me  to  raise  a  point  of  order.  "We 
have  already  debated  that  question,  and  I  submit  to  the 
moderators  if  it  is  lawful  to  reopen  it  now. 

Mr.  Massey:  I  hope  that  a  third  moderator  will  be 
called  to  the  stand  before  that  point  is  decided. 

Mr.  CouLLiNG :  I  have  no  objection  to  that. 

[The  two  moderators  then  present,  Drs.  Woods  and 
Anderson,  called  upon  Mr.  David  Hansborough  to  act  as 
umpire,  which  he  consented  to  do,  and  accordingly  took 
his  seat  upon  the  stand.] 

Mr.  CouLLiNG.:  My  point  of  order  is  one  which  I  feel 
no  personal  interest  in  at  all.  And  I  make  it  merely  to 
save  the  time  of  the  congregation.     You  know  that  we 


DESIGN    OF    BAPTISM.  243 

have  already  debated  the  mode  of  baptism,  and  Mr. 
Massey,  in  attempting  to  establish  his  position  in  the 
present  argument,  alludes  to  the  very  gist  of  that  de- 
bate. If  you  feel  disposed  to  let  him  proceed,  of  course 
I  will  have  an  opportunity  to  respond  in  precisely  the 
same  direction.  But  I  think  if  you  do  it  you  will  open 
the  door  of  discussion  just  as  wide  as  possible  to  the 
renewal  of  the  whole  of  that  discussion,  if  he  chooses  to ' 
follow  in  that  track.  I  submit  this  point  of  order  for 
your  decision. 

Mr.  Massey  :  So  far  as  the  question  of  time  is  con- 
cerned, I  suppose  the  gentleman  need  give  himself  no 
concern  ;  our  time  is  already  determined.  If  I  choose 
to  occupy  my  time  in  this  way,  it  will  be  iny  loss  of 
time  (if  it  be  a  loss).  So  far  as  regards  the  propriety 
of  this  mode  of  argument,  I  will  only  say  that  I  simply 
desire,  by  very  brief  testimony,  to  show,  as  I  am  refer- 
ring to  a  figurative  act^  that  that  figure  is  correctly 
drawn  from  the  substance.  It  is  an  argument  upon  the 
design  of  baptism,  and  does  not  relate,  necessarily,  to 
any  former  subject  of  debate.  I  claim  that  it  is  per- 
fectly legitimate  for  me  to  pursue  this  line  of  argument. 
He  will  have  the  right  to  respond  to  me  in  the  same 
way. 

[After  consultation,  the  moderators  decided  Mr.  Mas- 
sey to  be  in  order,  and  permitted  him  to  proceed.] 

Mr.  Massey  :  I  propose,  then,  as  the  basis  of  my  ar- 
gument, to  show  what  baptism  is — what  baptizo  liter- 
ally means,  by  a  few  quotations.  And  I  shall  then 
proceed  with  my  argument  to  show  that  the  figure  is 
correctly  drawn  from  the  substance.  To  do  this,  I 
present  you  the  'authority  of  all  the  lexicons  used  in 


244  DEBATE    ON    THE 

the  memorable  discussion  between  the  Rev.  Alexander 
Campbell  and  the  Rev.  N.  L.  Rice.  A  more  learned 
or  able  discussion  has  never  taken  place  in  our  country. 
Each  man  brought  all  he  could  find  to  sustain  his  side  of 
the  subject.  And  I  present  the  lexicons  introduced  by 
each  of  them,  that  there  shall  be  no  charge  of  unfairness 
against  me  for  introducing  those  on  one  side  only.  I 
will  refer  first  to  those  introduced  by  Mr.  Campbell : 

^''Scapula,  a  foreign  lexicographer,  of  1579.  On  bapto, 
the  root,  he  gives  :  mergo,  immergo,  item  tingo  (quod 
sit  immergendo) — to  dip,  to  immerse  ;  also,  to  dye,  be- 
cause that  may  be  done  by  immersing.  Of  the  passive, 
baptomai^  he  says:  'Merger  item  lavor' — to  be  im- 
mersed, to  be  washed.  Oibaptizo  :  *  mergo  seu  immer- 
go, item  submerge,  item  abluo,  lavo' — to  dip,  to  immerse ; 
also,  to  submerge  or  overwhelm,  to  wash,  to  cleanse. 

"  Ne-xt,  Henriciis  Stephanus,  of  1572:  Baplo  and 
baptizo.  '  Mergo  seu  immergo,  ut  quae  tingendi  aut 
abluendi  gratia  aqua  immergimus,'  to  dip  or  immerge, 
as  we  dip  things  for  the  purpose  of  dyeing  them,  or  im- 
merge them  in  water. 

''^Thesaurus  of  Robertson,  Cambridge,  1676:  Merino 
and  lavo^  to  immerse,  to  wash. 

^^  Schleusne?'  (Glasgow  ed.,  1824):  First,  '  Proprie, 
immergo  ac  intingo,  in  aquam  immergo' — properly,  it 
signifies,  I  immerse,  I  dip,  I  immerse  in  water ;  second, 
it  signifies,  I  wash  or  cleanse  by  water  (quia  haud  rare 
aliquid  immergi  ac  intingi  in  aquam  solet  ut  lavetur), 
because,  for  the  most  part,  a  thing  must  be  dipped  or 
plunged  into  water,  that  it  may  be  washed." 

It  escaped  my  observation,  in  our  former  discussion, 
that  I  had  here  the  definition  given  by  Schleusner,  when 


DESIGN    OF    BAPTISM.  245 

my  brother  quoted  it  from  memory,  as  one  of  the  three 
lexicons  in  the  University  of  Virginia.  I  stated  to  you 
then — and  I  now  make  good  my  promise — that  I  would 
examine  into  the  authorities  referred  to  by  the  gentle- 
man, and  see  what  they  did  teach.  I  have  examined 
them  carefully.  And  now,  by  way  of  showing  how  far 
they  teach  that  baptizo  means  to  sprinkle  or  to  pour, 
instead  of  giving  you  simply  from  memory  what  they 
teach,  I  have  given  it  to  you  from  a  printed  statement 
of  it,  and  you  can  compare  it  with  the  book,  and  then 
compare  both  with  the  definition  given  by  Mr.  Coulling. 

To  continue  the  quotations  : 

'•''Pasor  (London  ed.,  1650) :  '  Bapto  et  baptizo — 
mergo,  immergo  tingo  quod  sit  immergendo,  differt  a 
dunai  quod  est  profundum  petere  est  penitus  submergi.' 
Again  he  adds  :  '  Comparantur  afflictiones  gurgitibus 
aquarum  quibus  veluti  merguntur  qui  miseriis  et  calam- 
itatibus  hujus  vitse  conflictantur  ita,  tamen  merguntur 
ut  rursus  emergant.'  In  English,  '  to  dip,  to  immerse, 
to  dye,  because  it  is  done  by  immersing ;  it  differs  from 
dunai,  which  means,  to  sink  to  the  bottom  and  to  be 
thoroughly  submerged.  Metaphorically,  in  Matthew, 
afflictions  are  compared  to  a  flood  of  waters,  in  which 
they  seem  to  be  immersed,  who  are  overwhelmed  with 
the  misfortunes  and  miseries  of  life :  yet  only  so  over- 
whelmed, as  to  emerge  again.' 

''^Parkliurst,  in  his  lexicon  for  the  New  Testament, 
gives  primarily  for  baptizo,  to  dip,  to  immerse,  or  plunge 
in  water ;  but  in  the  New^  Testament  it  occurs  not 
strictly  in  this  sense,  unless  so  far  as  this  is  included  in 
' — '  to  wash  one's  self,  be  washed,  wash  the  hands  by 
immersion,  or  dipping  them  in  w^ater.' " 


246  DEBATE    ON    THE 

The  idea,  I  suppose,  is,  that  in  the  New  Testament  it 
is  used  to  denote  the  application  of  water,  and  that  this 
was  done  at  the  same  time  by  dipping  or  immersing  in 
water.  I  had  Donnegan  with  me  before.  He  is  here 
quoted,  and  I  had  no  necessity  to  bring  him  again : 

^^ Donnegan  gives, '  Baplizo,  to  immerse  repeatedly  in 
a  liquid,  to  submerge,  to  sink  thoroughly,  to  saturate ; 
metaphorically,  to  drench  with  wine,  to  dip  in  a  vessel 
and  draw.  Baptismos — immersion,  submersion,  the  act 
of  washing  or  bathing.  Baptistes  (a  baptist),  one  who 
immerses,  submerges.  Baptisma — an  object  immersed, 
submerged,  washed,  or  soaked.' 

^^Rev.  Dr.  John  Jones^  of  England,  defines  bapto,  '  I 
dip,  I  stain  ;'  baptizo,  '  I  plunge,  I  plunge  in  water,  dip, 
baptize,  bury,  overwhelm.' 

''''Greenfield J  the  editor  of  the  '  Comprehensive  Bible,' 
the  '  Polymicrian  New  Testament,'  &c.,  says  :  '  Bap- 
tizo  means,  to  immerse,  immerge,  submerge,  sink.'  In 
the  New  Testament :  '  To  wash,  to  perform  ablution, 
cleanse,  to  immerse,  baptize,  and  perform  the  rite  of 
baptism.' 

''''Professor  Rost,  a  German  linguist,  in  his  standard 
German  Lexicon,  defines  bapto  by  words  indicating,  to 
plunge,  to  immerse,  to  submerge. 

'^Bretschneider,  another  G-erman  lexicographer,  affirms 
that  '  An  entire  immersion  belongs  to  the  nature  of 
baptism.'  He  defines  it,  '  Proprie,  ssepius  intingo,  sse- 
pius  lavo,'  and  adds,  '  this  is  the  meaning  of  the  word  ; 
for  in  bapiizo  is  contained  the  idea  of  a  complete  immer- 
sion under  water ;  at  least,  so  is  baptisma^  in  the  New 
Testament.'  '  In  the  New  Testament  bapiizo  is  not 
used,  unless  concerning  the  sacred  and  solemn  submersion 


DESIGN    OF    BAPTISM.  247 

which  the  Jews  used,  that  they  might  ohlige  an  individ- 
ual to  an  amendment  of  life,  or  that  they  might  release 
him  from  the  guilt  of  his  sins.  In  the  New  Testament, 
without  any  adjunct,  it  means,  I  baptize  in  water  in 
the  solemn  rite  (as  the  Latin  fathers  use  i().  Actively, 
I  haptize  one  ;  passively,  I  am  immersed  into  v/ater  in 
the  solemn  ordinance,  I  am  initiated  hy  baptism — Matt, 
iii.  16;  Mark  i.  4;  Rom.  vi.  2.  Baptis7na,  immersion, 
submersion.  In  the  New  Testament  it  is  used  only  con- 
cerning the  sacred  submersion,  which  the  fathers  call 
baptism.     It  is  used  concerning  John's  baptism.' 

"5^55,  an  English  lexicographer  for  the  New  Testa- 
ment, gives,  baptizo,  '  to  dip,  inmierse,  to  plunge  in 
w^ater,  to  bathe  one's  self;  to  be  immersed  in  sufferings 
or  afflictions.' 

^^Slokius,  who  has  furnished  us  with  a  Greek  clavis 
and  a  Hebrew  clavis — one  for  the  Hebrew  and  one  for 
the  Grreek  Scriptures,  in  his  Leipsic  edition  of  1752, 
says  :  ^  Bapitizo,  generally,  and  by  the  force  of  the  word, 
indicates  the  idea  of  simply  dipping  and  diving ;  but 
properly,  it  means  to  dip  or  immerse  in  water.'  " 

These  thirteen  lexicons  were  introduced  by  Mr.  Camp- 
bell. The  following  were  introduced  by  Mr.  Rice ;  some 
of  them  were  the  same  that  were  used  by  Mr.  Campbell, 
and  I  give  what  each  debater  said  of  each  lexicon : 

'^  Scapula^  one  of  the  old  lexicographers  to  whom  Mr. 
Campbell  appealed,  thus  defines  the  word  baptizo : 
*  Mergo,  sen  immergo  ;  item  tingo  :  ut  quse  tingendi  aut 
abluendi  gratia  aqua  immergimus — item  mergo,  submer- 
ge, abruo  aqua — item  abluo,  lavo  (Mark  vii. ;  Luke  ii.  4) : 
to  dip  or  immerse — also,  to  dye — as  we  immerse  things  for 
the  purpose  of  coloring  or  washing  them;  also,  to  plunge. 


248  DEBATE    ON    THE 

submerge,  to  cover  with  water  ;  also,  to  cleanse,  to  wash.' 
(Mark  viL ;  Luke  ii.)  Baptismos  he  thus  defines:  '  Mer- 
sio,  lotio,  ablatio,  ipse  immergendi,  item  lavandi  seu 
abluendi  actus.'  (Mark  vii.,  &c.)  Immersion,  washing, 
cleansing,  the  act  itself  of  immersing  ;  also,  of  washing 
or  cleansing.     (Mark  vii.  4.) 

'^Hedericiis  thus  defines  baptizo :  'Mergo,  immergo, 
aqua,  abruo ;  (2)  Ablao,  lavo ;  (3)  Baptizo,  significatu 
sacro :'  To  dip,  immerse,  to  cover  with  water ;  (2)  to 
cleanse,  to  wash  ;  (3)  to  baptize  in  a  sacred  sense. 

^^Stephanus  defines  it  thus:  '  Mergo,  seu  imraergo, 
ut  qu8B  tingendi  aut  abluendi  gratia  aqua  immergimus. 
Mergo,  submergo,  abruo  aqua  ;  abluo,  lavo :'  To  dip, 
immerse,  as  we  immerse  things  for  the  purpose  of  color- 
ing or  washing ;  to  merge,  submerge,  to  cover  with 
water  ;  to  cleanse,  to  wash. 

^^  Schleusner  defines  baptizo,  not  only  to  plunge,  im- 
merse, but  to  cleanse,  wash,  to  purify  with  water  (abluo, 
lavo,  aqua  purgo). 

'"^Parkliurst  defines  it:  'To  immerse  in  or  wash  with 
water,  in  token  of  purification.' 

'^Robinson  defines  it:  'To  immerse,  to  sink;  for  ex- 
ample, spoken  of  ships,  galleys,  &c.  In  the  New  Testa- 
ment, to  wash,  to  cleanse  by  washing ;  to  wash  one's  self, 
to  bathe,  perform  ablution,  &c.' 

'^ Schriuellius  defines  it:  'Baptizo,  mergo,  abluo,  lavo, 
to  baptize,  to  immerse,  to  cleanse,  to  wash.'  " 

Schrivellius  is  another  of  the  three  lexicons  upon  which 
the  brother  relied,  on  the  former  occasion,  to  sustain  sprink- 
ling and  pouring.  Now  bear  in  mind,  my  hisarers,  that 
while  I  presented  authority  from  twenty-two  Greek  lex- 
icons, he  quoted  from  but  three,  and  those  from  memory. 
You  noiu  see  hoiv  far  they  siistain  his  views  ! 


DESIGN    OF     BAPTISM.  249 


*'  Groves :  *  To  dip,  immerse,  immerge,  plunge ;  to  wash, 
cleanse,  purify.  Baptizomai,  to  wash  one's  self,  bathe,  &c.' 

"  Bretschneider:  '  Proprise,  sepius  intingo,  sepius  lavo  ; 
deinde  (1)  lavo,.  abluo  simpliciter — medium,  &c. ;  lavo 
me,  abluo  me  :'  ])roperly,  often  to  dip,  often  to  wash  ; 
then,  (1)  .simply  to  wash,  to  cleanse  ;  in  the  middle 
voice,  '  I.  wash  or  cleanse  myself.' 

"  Suidas  defines  baptizo,  not  only  to  sink,  plunge,  im- 
merse, but  to  wet,  wash,  cleanse,  purify,  «Scc.  (madefa- 
cio,  lavo,  abluo,  purgo,  mundo). 

^^Wahl  defines  it:  first,  to  wash,  perform  ablution, 
cleanse  ;  secondly,  to  immerse,  &c. 

'•'Greenfield  defines  it:  to  immerse,  immerge,  sub- 
merge, sink ;  and  in  the  New  Testament,  to  wash,  per- 
form ablution,  cleanse  ;  to  immerse." 

Here  are  definitions  of  baptizo  from  twenty-one  Greek 
Lexicons.  Here  is  another  Grreek  Lexicon,  Liddell  and 
Scott,  a  work  of  high  authority,  prepared  to  enable  the 
student  to  read  G-reek  from  the  days  of  the  earliest  poets 
down  to  the  present  time.     It  gives  : 

''Baptizo^  to  dip  repeatedly,  of  ships,  to  sink  them  : 
passive,  to  bathe  :  third,  to  baptize,  New  Testament ; 
hence  baptists^  a  dipping,  bathing,  a  washing,  a  draw- 
ing water ;  baptism.     Eccl." 

Now  mark  you,  he  says  that  in  the  New  Testament 
it  means  to  baptize.  And  then  he  tells  you  what  bap- 
tisis  means  ;  hence  he  says,  ''  a  dipping,  a  bathing,  wash- 
ing, drawing  water,  baptism." 

"  Baptisma,  that  which  is  dipped.  Bajjtisterion,  a 
bathing-place,  swimming-bai  h :  the  baptistry  of  a  church. 
Eccl.  BaptisteSj  one  that  dips,  a  dyer,  a  baptizer.  Bap- 
tos,  dipped,  dyed  :  bright  colored,  drawn  like  water." 


250  DEBATE    ON    THE 

He  gives  you  figurative  as  well  as  literal  meanings. 
There  is  but  one  lexicon  \Yhich  has  been  quoted  in  the 
whole  discussion  by  either  of  us  ;  the  definition  from 
w^hich  I  have  not  presented.  That  is  Stephens'  The- 
saurus. That  is  not  here,  nor  was  it  here  when  the 
gentleman  quoted  from  it  before.  I  am  willing  that  my 
statements  as  taken  down  by  the  reporter,  shall  be  com- 
pared with  that  book,  when  it  can  be  examined  here- 
after ;  and  I  assert  that  that  book  gives  no  more  sup- 
port to  sprinkling  or  pouring,  than  those  from  which  I 
have  quoted. 

I  have  now  introduced  the  strongest  testimony  that 
can  be  presented,  to  lay  the  foundation  upon  which 
to  build  the  superstructure.  If  a  scholar  were  seeking 
to  ascertain  the  meaning  of  any  other  word,  Greek 
or  English,  and,  after  finding  such  a  collection  of  tes- 
timony upon  it  as  this,  should  go  away  dissatisfied,  ] 
should  say  that  there  was  a  fastidiousness  about  him 
that  would  convince  me  that  there  was  a  screio  loose 
in  his  upper  story.  Here  are  twenly-two  Greek  lexi- 
cons ;  all  giving  to  dip,  to  plunge,  to  immerse,  as  the 
meaning  of  baptizo,  and  not  one  giving  to  sprinkle,  or 
pour,  as  even  a  secondary  meaning  of  it. 

Having  now  shown  you  that  the  literal  meaning  of 
baptizo  is  to  dip,  plunge,  immerse,  submerge,  I  will  pro- 
ceed with  my  argument.  Now,  bear  in  mind  that  when- 
ever these  lexicons  speak  of  the  act,  they  speak  of  it  as  I 
have  indicated.  When  they  speak,  secondarily,  of  the 
effect  of  the  act,  they  speak  of  a  wetting,  a  moistening, 
a  washing,  a  dyeing,  &c.,  because  those  things  are  done 
by  immersion  or  dipping. 

Now,  I  wish  to  satisfy  your  minds,  that  I  have  rightly 


DESIGN    OF    BAPTISM.  251 

concluded  from  these  premises,  that  when  an  individual 
is  buried  in  the  liquid  grave  in  baptism^  he  represents 
himself  as  having  died  with  Christ  the  ^Saviour.  I  will 
not  simply  present  my  argument,  my  oivri  views.  I 
propose  to  show  you  that  if  I  am  mistaken,  1  am  in  the 
very  best  of  company.  In  other  words,  to  show  you 
that  the  most  able  men  concur  with  me  in  these  views. 
I  will  read  you,  first,  what  Paul  says  upon  this  point. 
In  Romans  vi.  2,  &c.,  you  will  find  this  : 

"  How  shall  we,  that  are  dead  to  sin,  live  any  longer 
therein  ?  Know  ye  not  that  so  many  of  us  as  were 
baptized  into  Jesus  Christ,  were  baptized  into  his  death?" 

Dr.  McKnight,  vol.  i.,  page  287,  paraphrases  this  pas- 
saoje.  thus : 

"  Our  baptism  teaches  us,  that  we  have  died  by  sin. 
For  are  ye  ignorant^  that  so  many  of  us  as  have  by 
baptism  become  ChrisVs  disciples,  have  been  baptized 
into  the  likeness  of  his  death  (verse  5),  have  been  buried 
under  the  water,  as  persons  who,  like  Christ,  have  been 
killed  by  sin  (verse  10)." 

He  says  before  this,  p.  283  : 

"  In  baptism,  the  rite  of  initiation  into  the  Christian 
Church,  the  baptized  person  is  buried  under  the  water, 
as  one  put  to  death  with  Christ  on  account  of  sin,  in 
order  that  he  may  be  strongly  inrpressed  with  a  sense  of 
the  malignity  of  sin,  and  excited  to  hate  it  as  the  great- 
est of  evils,  verse  3.  Moreover,  in  the  same  rite,  the  bap- 
tized person  being  raised  up  out  of  the  water,  after  being 
washed,  he  is  thereby  taught  that  he  shall  be  raised 
from  the  dead  with  Christ,  by  the  power  of  the  Father, 
to  live  with  him  forever  in  heaven',  provided  he  is  pre- 
pared for  that  life  by  true  holiness,  verses  4,  5.     Far- 


252  DEBATE    ON    THE 

ther,  by  their  baptism,  believers  are  laid  under  the 
strongest  obligations  to  holiness,  because  it  represents 
their  old  man,  their  old  corrupt  nature,  as  crucified  with 
Christ,  to  teach  them  that  their  body,  which  sin  claimed 
as  its  property,  being  put  to  death,  was  no  longer  to 
serve  sin  as  its  slave,  verse  6." 

I  might  have  commented  upon  the  third  and  fourth 
verses  of  this  chapter,  before  reading  this  exposition,  but 
I  scarcely  considered  it  necessary,  as  I  endorse  this  view, 
and  take  it  as  my  own  comment — that  when  an  indi- 
vidual is  buried  with  Christ  in  baptism,  it  shows  that 
he  professes  that  his  old  man,  his  old  nature,  is  dead, 
and  therefore  he  wishes  to  bury  it ;  and  that  he  is  alive 
to  true  holiness  and  to  Jesus  Cbrist,  and  therefore  he 
wishes,  in  likeness  of  his  resurrection,  to  be  raised  up 
with  him  to  a  new  life.  Patrick,  Lowth,  &o.,  say  upon 
the  same  passage  : 

"  We  are  buried  luitli  him  in  baptism^  It  being  so 
expressly  declared  here,  and  Col.  ii.  12,  that  "  we  are 
buried  with  Christ  in  baptism,  by  being  buried  under 
water  ;  and  the  argument  to  oblige  us  to  a  conformity 
to  his  death,  by  dying  to  sin,  being  taken  hence,  and 
this  immersion  being  religiously  observed  by  all  Chris- 
tians for  thirteen  centuries,  and  approved  by  our  Church, 
and  the  change  of  it  into  sprinkling,  even  without  any 
allowance  from  the  author  of  this  institution,  or  any 
license  from  any  council  of  the  Church,  being  that- 
which  the  Romanist  still  urgeth  to  justify  his  refusal  of 
the  cup  to  the  laity,  it  were  to  be  wished  that  this  cus- 
tom might  be  again  of" general  .use,  and  aspersion  only 
permitted,  as  of  old,  in  case  of  the  clinici,  or  in  present 
danger  of  death." 


DESIGN    OF    BAPTISM.  253 

Robert  Haldane  says  : 

"  111  the  verse  before  us  the  apostle  proves  that  Chris- 
tians are  dead  to  siq,  because  they  died  with  Christ. 
The  rite  of  baptism  exhibits  Christians  as  dying,  as 
buried,  and  as  risen  with  Christ.  Kyinw  ye  not — He 
refers  to  \that  he  is  now  declaring  as  a  thing  well  known 
to  those  whom  he  addresses.  Baptized  into  Jesus  Christ 
— By  faith  believers  are  made  one  with  Christ,  they 
become  members  of  his  body.  This  oneness  is  repre- 
sented emblematically  by  baptism.  Baptized  into  his 
death — In  baptism,  they  are  also  represented  as  dying 
with  Christ.  This  rite,  then,  proceeds  on  the  fact  that 
they  have  died  with  him  who  bore  their  sins." 

On  the  4th  verse,  he  says  : 

•'  The  death  of  Christ  was  the  means  by  which  sin 
was  destroyed,  and  his  burial  the  proof  of  the  reality  of 
his  death.  Christians  are  therefore  represented  as  buried 
with  him  by  baptism  into  his  death,  in  token  that  they 
really  died  with  him  ;  and  if  buried  with  him,  it  is  not 
that  they  shall  remain  in  the  grave,  but  as  Christ  arose 
from  the  dead  they  should  also  rise.  Their  baptism, 
then,  is  the  figure  of  their  complete  deliverance  from 
the  guilt  of  sin,  signifying  that  God  places  to  their  ac- 
count the  death  of  Christ  as  their  own  death  :  it  is  also 
a  figure  of  their  purification  and  resurrection  for  the 
service  of  God." 

Olshausen,  vol.  iii.,  page  594,  says  upon  the  same 
passage  : 

"  In  proof  of  the  above  affirmation,  Paul  appeals  to 
the  consciousness  of  his  readers  with  regard  to  their  own 
experience.  They  had  gone  through,  he  says,  in  bap- 
tism, the  death,  nay,  the  burial  of  Christ  with  him,  as 


254  DEBATE    Ox\    THE 


also  the  awakening  to  a  now  life.  In  this  passage, 
also,  we  are  by  his  means  to  refer  the  baptism  merely  to 
their  own  resolutions,  or  see  in  it  merely  a  figure,  in 
which  the  one  half  of  the  ancient  baptismal  rite,  the 
submersion^  merely  prefigures  the  death  and  burial  of  the 
old  man — the  second  half  the  emersion,  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  new  man.'^ 

These  are  the  testimonies  1  propose  to  submit  to 
you  upon  that  point.  I  submit  the  question  to  you,  if 
the  plain  teachings  of  the  word  of  ^Tod  do  not  justify 
the  conclusion  to  which  all  these  writers,  in  common 
with  my  humble  self,  have  come,  especially  when  we 
have,  as  a  basis,  such  a  foundation  as  is  laid  by  the 
Greek  lexicographers. 

In  the  next  place,  he  whoj  in  accordance  with  his 
own  desire,  and  upon  his  profession  of  faith  in  Jesus 
Christ,  is  put  under  the  water  and  raised-'up  out  of  it, 
declares,  by  these  acts,  his  firm  belief  that  Jesus  Christ 
not  only  died  but  that  Ho  was  buried  and  rose  again. 
This  I  affirm  to  be  the  representation,  or  declaration,  of 
the  act.  Paul  entertained  this  view  of  it  when  he  was 
arguing  the  question  of  the  resurrection  from  the  dead. 
Many  persons  of  that  time  denied  the  resurrection  of  the 
dead.     Paul  met  them  with  such  arguments  as  these  : 

*'  If  Christ  be  not  risen  from  the  dead,  then  is  our 
preaching  vain,  and  your  faith  is  also  vain."  He  seems 
here  to  recoi^nize  believins^  in  the  resurrection  of  Jesus 
Christ,  as  the  turning-point  in  all  the  claims  to  Christi- 
anity. Jesus  Christ  had  declared  that  He  would  be  put 
to  death  ;  that  He  would  be  buried  and  remain  three 
days  in  the  grave,  and  that  He  would  arise  from  the 
dead.     The  Jews  understood  this.     You  hear  them  say- 


DESIGN    OF    BAPTISM.  2o5 

ing,  that  "  this  babbler  said,  while  he  was  yet  living, 
that  He  would  rise  again."  .  They  desired  a  band  of 
soldiers  to  guard  the  tomb,  and  prevent  His  disciples  from 
stealing  away  His  body,  and  then  claiming  that  He  had 
risen  as^ain.  All  understood  that  the  whole  scheme  de- 
pended  upon  the  asiswcr  to  the  question,  did  Christ  rise 
from  the  dead  according  to  His  declaration  ?  Paul, 
arguing  in  favor  of  the  resurrection,  says  :  "  If  the  dead 
rise  not,  why  are  they  then  baptized  for  the  dead  ?"  You 
will  find  this  in  the  fifteenth  chapter  of  1  Corinthians, 
and  the  twenty-ninth  verse.  The  argument  of  this  pas- 
sage (to  ray  mind)  is  this  :  In  every  administration  of 
baptism,  there  is  a  symbolical  representation  of  a  burial 
and  a  resurrection.  This  betokens  the  faith  of  the  sub- 
ject in  the  burial  and  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ.  Why 
do  yoic  thus  act  ?  Paul  asks,  irhy  do  you  continue  this 
witness,  if  you  do  not  believe  his  testimony  ?  Why  do 
you  say,  by  your  baptism,  when  you  are  put  under  the 
water,  that  you  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  died  and  was 
buried,  and  that  you  have  died  ivith  Him  ;  why  do  you 
say,  by  being  raised  up  out  of  the  water,  that  you  be- 
lieve Jesus  Christ  rose  from  the  dead,  if  you  do  not  be- 
lieve it  ?  Your  baptism  would  be  a  wholly  unmeaning 
ceremony  if  Christ  had  not  risen.  This  is  my  opinion 
of  the  argument  Paul  used. 

In  this  opinion  I  am  sustained  by  Pedobaptist  writers 
of  the  highest  standing. 

Dr.  Adam  Clarke  says  upon  this  point : 

"  The  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  our  Lord  was  a 
grand  doctrine  among  the  apostles  ;  they  considered  and 
preached  this  as  the  demonstration  of  the  truth  of  the 
gospel.     2.  The  multitudes  who  embraced  Christianity. 


256  DEBATE    ON    THE 

became   converts  on  the   evidence  of  this   resurrection. 

3.  This  resurrection  was  considered  the  pledge  and  proof 
of  the  resurrection  of  all  believers  in  Christ,  to  the  pos- 
session of  the   same  glory  into  which  he   had   entered. 

4.  The  baptism  which  they  received,  they  considered  as 
an  emblem  of  their  natural  death*  and  resurrection. 
This  doctrine  St.  Paul  most  pointedly  preaches,  Rom.  vi., 
8,  4,  5.  Know  ye  not  that  so  many  of  us  as  ivere  bap- 
tized into  Jesus  Christ  ivere  baptized  into  his  death  ? 
Therefore  ive  are  buried  with  him  by  baptism  into 
death  ;  that  like  as  Christ  ivas  raised  up  from  the  dead, 
even  so  we  also  should  walk  in  newness  of  life ;  for 
if  we  have  been  planted  together  in  the  likeness  of  his 
death,  we  shall  be  also  in  his  resurrection.  5.  It  is  evi- 
dent from  this,  that  all  who  died  in  the  faith  of  Christ, 
died  in  the  faith  of  the  resurrection.'''' 

Passing  by  other  remarks,  I  read  : 

''  10.  The  sum  of  the  apostle's  meaning  appears  to 
be  this  :  If  there  be  no  resurrection  of  the  dead,  those 
who,  in  becoming  Christians,  expose  themselves  to  all 
manner  of  privations,  crosses,  severe  sufferings,  and  a 
violent  death,  can  have  no  compensation,  nor  any  motive 
sufficient  to  induce  them  to  expose  themselves  to  such 
miseries.  But  as  they  receive  baptism  as  an  emblem  of 
death,  in  voluntarily  going  under  the  water,  so  they  re- 
ceive it  as  an  emblem  of  the  resurrection  unto  eternal 
life,  in  coming  up  out  of  the  water  ;  thus  they  are  bap- 
tized for  the  dead,  in  perfect  faith  of  the  resurrection.*' 

Mr.  Barnes  says,  upon  the  same  subject : 

"  The  other  opinion,  therefore,  is,  that  the  apostle 
here  refers  to  baptism  as  administered  to  all  believers* 
This  is  the  most  correct  opinion  ;  is  the  most  simple,  and 


DESIGN    OF     BAPTISM.  257 

best  meets  the  design  of  the  argument.  According  to 
this,  it  means  that  they  had  been  baptized  with  the  hope 
and  expectation  of  a  resurrection  of  the  dead.  They 
had  received  this  as  one  of  the  leading  doctrines  of  the 
gospel  when  they  were  baptized.  It  was  a  part  of  their 
firm  and  full  belief  that  the  dead  would  rise.  The  argu- 
ment^ according^  to  this  interpretation,  is,  that  this  was 
an  essential  article  of  the  faith  of  a  Christian  ;  that  it 
was  embraced  by  all  ;  that  it  constituted  a  part  of  their 
very  profession  ;  and  that  for  any  one  to  deny  it  was  to 
deny  that  which  entered  into  the  very  foundation  of  the 
Christian  faith." 

Dr.  McKnight  says  upon  this  passage  : 
"  Baptism  being  an  emblematical  representation  of 
the  death  and  burial  and  resurrection,  not  only  of  Christ, 
but  of  all  mankind,  Rom.  vi.  4,  it  was  fitly  made  the 
right  of  initiation  into  the  Christian  Church ;  and  the 
person  who  received  it,  thereby  publicly  professino^  his 
belief  of  the  resurrection  of  Christ  and  of  the  dead, 
might  with  the  greatest  propriety  be  said  to  have  been 
baptized  for  the  dead,  that  is,  for  his  belief  of  the  resur- 
rection of  the  dead." 

I  have  another  work  to  refer  to  upon  this  passage,  but 
I  think  these  are  sufficient  to  show  that  if  my  views  of 
the  meaning  of  this  portion  of  divine  truth  are  incorrect, 
I  have  fallen  into  a  mistake  into  which  the  most  able 
Pedobaptist  authors  have  also  fallen.  I  do  not  bring 
you  here  a  collection  of  testimonies  from  Baptists  ;  there 
is  one  general  agreement  with  them  upon  this  point.  I 
bring  you  no  partial  testimony.  You  cannot  suppose 
that  men  whose  partialities  are  on  the  other  side  would 
make   admissions  in   my  favor,  unless  they   were  con- 


258  DEBATE    ON    THE 

strained  to  do  it  by  an  honest  and  conscientious  convic- 
tion. Sach  is  the  meaning  of  the  text,  and  they  are 
bound  to  declare  it.  They  could  not  go  contrary  to  this 
interpretation  or  construction  of  the  plain  word. 

Again :  Baptism  stands  as  a  commemorative  ordi- 
nance. It  is  one  of  the  three  living  witnesses  that  tes- 
tify to  all,  and  will  continue  to  testify  through  all  re- 
maining ages  of  the  world,  of  the  glorious  truths  which 
it  symbolizes.  "  There  are  three  that  bear  record  in 
heaven,  the  Father,  the  AVord,  and  the  Holy  Ghost ;  and 
these  three  are  one."  '^  There  are  three  that  bear  record 
on  earth,  the  spirit,  the  water  and  the  blood,  and  these 
three  agree  in  one."  When  the  spirit,  my  brother,  en- 
tered your  heart  and  bore  witness  with  your  spirit  that 
you  were  born  of  G-od,  you  had  within  yourself  a  living 
witness  of  the  great  and  glorious  truth  that  the  gospel 
of  Jesus  Christ  was  of  divine  origin.  When  you  were 
buried  with  Christ  in  baptism,  there  was  another  living 
witness  standing  out  and  testifying  to  all  who  beheld  it, 
that  you  believed  Jesus  Christ  died  for  your  sins,  and 
rose  again  for  your  justification.  When  you  meet 
around  the  sacred  board  to  partake  of  the  emblems 
of  the  broken  body  and  shed  blood  of  Jesus  Christ, 
there  is  a  iJiird  witness,  and  all  three  agree  in  the  same 
testimony. 

Suppose  some  foreigner,  who  had  never  heard  that  we 
were  once  under  British  rule,  enters  our  land  on  the 
Fourth  of  July,  and,  seeing  our  great  military  displays, 
w^hile  the  stars  and  stripes  are  floating  above  us,  asks 
what  this  means?  You  would  say  to  him,  it  is  the 
celebration  of  a  great  and  wonderful  event :  it  is  the 
comme7noratio7i  of  the  declaration  by  the  American  coIo- 


DESIGN    OF    BAPTISM.  259 

nists,  that  they  were,  and  of  right  ought  to  be,  free  and 
independent.  He  might  ask,  is  it  true  they  ever  made 
any  such  a  declaration?  You  \Yould  say,  "  Sir,  can 
you  conceive  that  men  would  commemorate  an  event 
ichich  never  took  place?  If  you  will  begin,  sir,  and 
trace  back  our  history,  you  will  find  that  this  same  day 
has  been  celebrated  every  year  from  the  birth  of  our 
national  independence  until  the  present  time." 

"Would  not  this  be  strong-,  if  not  conclusive  evidence, 
that  these  people  were  once  under  different  rule,  and 
that  they  declared  and  maintained  their  independence  ? 
It  may  be,  and  God  grant  that  it  77iay  be  so  ;  that  gene- 
rations yet  unborn  shall  rise  up  and  rejoice,  as  my  brother 
did  yesterday,  that  they  live  under  the  stars  and  stripes. 

And  just  here  allow  me  to  say,  (as  it  was  in  his  last 
address,  and  I  had  no  opportunity  to  reply  to  it — it  is 
a  digression,  I  know,  from  the  present  argument),  I 
couJd  not  but  feel  curious  to  learn  who  dared  make 
mouths  at  my  brother  ichile  he  was  under  my  c§re. 
What  could  have  called  forth  those  declarations  oi  fear- 
lessness and  valor  ?  I  felt  almost  like  saying :  my 
brother,  make  yourself  perfectly  easy  ;  you  shall  not  be 
hurt  while  you  are  with  me  ;  I  have  determined  for  the 
residue  of  your  stay  in  this  district,  to  pay  attention  to 
you  ;  to  observe  your  movements,  and  as  long  as  you 
behave  yourself  as  a  modest  man  ought  to  do,  nobody 
shall  hurt  you  ;  but  if  you  become  saucy  and  conceited, 
and  ofive  another  s^eneral  challens^e  to  "  all  the  world 
and  the  rest  of  mankind,"  to  discuss  these  things  with 
you,  I  will  take  you  in  hand  again,  and  teach  you  to  be 
a  little  more  careful  and  cautious.  But,  may  God  grant 
that  thousands  of  years  may  see  the.  stars  and  stripes 


260  DEBATE    ON    THE 

floating  over  our  unsevered  union  I  And  should  this  he 
the  case,  and  should  any  ask,  a  thousand  years  from 
this  time,  what  is  the  Fourth  of  July  celebrated  for  ? 
the  answer  will  teach  the  same  lessons  it  taus^ht  the 
very  first  time  it  was  celebrated.  It  is  a  cominemora- 
tion  of  events  dear  to  us  as  a  nation, — hence  we  ob- 
serve it. 

And  so  we  regard  baptism.  It  is  a  commemoration 
of  events  far  back  in  the  world's  history.  More  than 
eighteen  hundred  years  have  rolled  around,  and  yet  it  is 
just  as  true  to-day  that  Jesus  Christ  died  for  our  sins, 
and  rose  for  our  justification,  as  it  was  eighteen  hun- 
dred years  ago.  And  the  very  same  truth  is  presented 
to  our  mind  by  this  commemoration  ;  by  this  burial 
ivith  Christ  in  baptism,  as  when  it  was  first  adminis- 
tered. By  it,  we  say,  as  emphatically  as  those  who 
were  buried  with  Christ  in  baptism  in  the  days  of  the 
apostles  did,  that  loe  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  died  for 
ou^  sins,  and  that  we  profess  to  be  dead  to  sin.  By  our 
being  raised  up  out  of  the  water,  ive  declare  our  belief 
that  Jesus  Christ  arose  fro^n  the  dead,  for  our  justifica- 
tion ;  and  that  we  are  now,  in  likeness  of  his  resurrec- 
tion, raised  up  out  of  the  liquid  grave.  AVe  declare  to 
the  world,  that  we  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  lives  to  die 
no  more;  and  that  ive,  being  new  creatures,  possessed 
of  a  never-ending  life^  of  an  eternal  inheritance,  having 
once  died,  are  now  risen  with  Christ  through  faith  in 
Grod's  dear  Son,  to  enjoy  an  everlasting  life.  We  de- 
clared our  belief  in  these  truths,  by  submitting  to  this 
ordinance.  Baptism  has  not  washed  away  our  sins  ;  it 
has  not  killed  our  old  man.  We  do  not  bury  a  man  to 
kill  him  !     We  bury  him  because  he  is  dead.     We  do 


DESIGN    OF    BAPTISM.  261 

not  baptize  a  man  to  kill  sin  in  him  or  to  make  him  a 
Christian  ;  but  because  he  is  a  Christian.,  and  wishes, 
"by  this  declarative  act,  by  this  act  of  obedience  to  Jesus 
Christy  to  declare  his  faith  in  the  deaths  burial.,  and 
resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  as  the  procuring  cause  of 
his  pardon  and  salvation.  This  is  the  declaration 
made  by  every  proper  administration  of  the  ordinance  of 
baptism. 

[Time  expired] 


MR.  COULLING'S  FIFTH  REPLY. 

Mr.  CouLLiNG  :  If  I  have  been  fortunate  enough  to 
receive  the  views  that  my  good  brother  has  endeavored 
to  present,  I  understand  him  to  teach  this  doctrine  :  that 
in  the  sixth  chapter  of  St.  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Romans 
we  are  told  that  we  ought  to  be  baptized  into  death,  and 
that  passage  teaches  us  that  our  baptism  is  intended  to 
represent — I  think  he  used  that  term^ — that  it  is  intended 
to  symbolize — another  term  that  he  used — that  it  is  in- 
tended to  show — the  term  he  employs  in  the  proposition 
he  is  debating — the  death,  and  burial,  and  resurrection, 
of  Jesus  Christ.  If  I  did  not  misunderstand  him,  he 
said  that  baptism  is  intended  to  symbolize  that.  His 
proposition  is  that  baptism  is  intended  to  show  the  faith 
of  the  person  in  the  death,  burial,  and  resurrection  of 
Christ,  as  the  procuring  cause  of  his  pardon  and  salva- 
tion. His  argument  is  that  baptism  is  intended  to  rep- 
resent the  death,  burial,  and  resurrection  of  Jesus 
Christ.  That  is  his  argument.  He  states  one  point,  and 
argues  another. 


262  DEBATE     ON    THE 

Mr.  Massey:  I  stated  all  along  that  it  was  to  show  his 
faith  in  those  truths. 

Mr.  CouLLiNG  :  Is  it  to  represent  his  faith  in  those 
truths,  or  is  it  to  represent  those  truths  ?  which  is  it  ? 
However,  never  mhid  that ;  we  W' ill  try  to  eliminate  his 
meaning. 

Before  I  proceed  to  notice  what  he  has  referred  to,  I 
wish  to  call  your  attention  to  the  very  solid  foundation 
upon  which  he  has  erected  this  superstructure ;  the 
foundation  upon  which  he  stands  with  the  utmost  confi- 
dence, for  which  he  congratulates  himself.  And  yet, 
pray,  what  is  that  foundation  ?  In  the  first  place  he 
refers  to  lexicographers  to  prove  that  baptizo  means  only 
immerse  ;  and  one  half  of  the  very  lexicons  cited  hy 
Alexander  Campbell,  that  he  read,  give  to  baptizo  more 
meanings  than  immerse.  Almost  every  one  that  was 
cited  by  Dr.  Rice,  does  identically  the  same  thing.  So 
that  it  is  a  notorious  fact,  from  Dan  to  Beersheba,  that 
baptizo  has  not  one  meaning  only.  The  brother  is  right 
fond  of  quoting  Pedobaptist  authorities.  Now  allow  me 
to  quote  an  immersionist  authority.  He  certainly  can- 
not object  to  Dr.  Alexander  Carson,  one  of  the  very 
strongest  men  upon  that  subject  that  I  know  anything 
about.  I  will  read  a  sentence  or  two  from  the  55th 
page  of  his  work  on  Baptism  : 

"  Having  viewed  bapto  in  every  light  in  which  it  can 
assist  us  on  this  subject,  I  shall  now  proceed  to  exhibit 
the  examples  of  the  occurrence  of  baptizo  itself,  which, 
to  the  utter  exclusion  of  the  rest,  is  applied  to  the 
Christian  rite.  It  has  been  generally  taken  for  granted, 
that  the  two  words  are  equally  applicable  to  baptism, 
and  that  they  both  equally  signify  to  dye.     Both  of  them 


DESIGN    OF    BAPTISM.  263 

are  supposed,  in  a  secondary  sense,  to  signify  to  wash  or 
moisten.  I  do  not  admit  this  with  respect  to  either.  I 
have  ah'eaily  proved  this  with  respect  to  bapio  ;  the  proof 
is  equally  strong  Avith  respect  to  baptizo.  My  position 
IS,  that  it  ahvays  signifies  to  clip ;  never  expressing' 
anytliing  but  mode.  IN^ow,  as  I  have  all  the  lexicogra- 
phers and  commentators  against  me  in  this  opinion,  it 
will  be  necessary  to  say  a  w^ord  or  two  with  respect  to 
the  authority  of  lexicons." 

Now,  there'is  iho,  testimony  of  a  man  who  adjusted  him-* 
self  to  the  task  (and  I  tell  you  it  is  a  herculean  task) 
to  prove  that  baptizo  means  nothing  in  the  world  but 
to  immerse  ;  that  is  the  confession  he  makes. 

1  quoted,  my  friend  says,  from  three  lexicons  in  the 
former  debate.  I  quoted  from  nineteen.  I  quoted  from 
memory,  you  are  told.  I  went  to  the  University  library — 

Mr.  Massey  :  Nineteen  here,. or  at  Mount  Moriah  ? 

Mr.  CouLLiNG  :  Nineteen  yonder  at  the  stand.  I  have 
them  here  in  my  book. 

Mr.  Massey  :  I  must  have  been  deaf  when  you  did 
it. 

Mr.  CouLLiNG  :  I  cannot  answer  for  your  ears  ;  I  know 
I  did  read  them.  It  is  said  I  quoted  from  memory.  I 
wish  to  make  one  remark.  I  went  to  Mr.  Holcombe,  the 
librarian  of  the  University  of  Virginia,  and  asked  hi'm 
to  let  me  see  several  Greek  lexicons  ;  among  the  rest 
were  Stephens'  Thesaurus,  and  Passow's  G-reek  and 
Grerman  Lexicon.  The  correctness  of  my  definition  has 
been  proved  by  Passow  from  Homer,  Hesiod,  and  Herod- 
otus, who  used  baptizo  to  signify  to  pour  ;  and  no  man 
can  gainsay  that,  unless  he  can  file  an  objection  to  Pas- 
sow,   which  will  destroy   his    authority    as  a    scholar. 


264  DEBATE  ON  THE 

Let  me  tell  you  what  I  copied  from  Schleusner's  lexicon, 
which  has  been  dwelt  upon  here  with  a  great  deal  of 
emphasis.  Schleusner  gives  these  meaningsk :  merg-o, 
or  immergo,  mergo  -^means  to  merse,  and  immergo  to 
immerse.  And  he  adds  immediately  :  "  but  never  in 
this  signification  in  the  New  Testament."  I  stopped 
when  I  put  that  down,  because  it  was  all  that  I  wanted. 
That  is  in  the  University  library,  and  any  one  can  find  it 
there,  if  he  chooses  to  go  there  to  look  for  it.  Now,  I 
say,  there  is  the  corner-stone,  and  almost  all  around  the 
foundation  of  the  good  brother's  position. 

Now  to  makeup  the  rest  of  the  foundation  what  does 
he  do  ?  He  applies  to  a  set  of  men,  of  w^hom  he  affirms 
most  pointedly,  that  if  they  do  not  agree  with  him,  that 
baptizo  means  nothing  but  to  immerse,  after  all  that  he 
has  said,  there  is  a  screw  loose  somewhere.  And  every  man, 
then,  has  a  screw  loose  somewhere.  That  is  his  founda- 
tion. If  he  is  mistaken,  he  says,  he  is  mistaken  in  very 
good  company.  Well,  that  may  be.  Error  after  error 
has  been  handed  down  through  ages,  until,  hoary  with 
those  ages,  its  very  deformities  have  become  attractive. 
And  this  is  one  of  those  hoary  errors.  Let  any  man  take 
up  any  history  of  the  Church — I  do  not  care  which  it  is 
— and  just  read  the  notions  and  views  that  have  been 
variously  entertained  upon  almost  every  subject  in  the- 
ology, and  he  will  not  then  be  astonished  at  anything. 
Now  so  much  for  the  foundation  of  this  theory,  the 
foundation  of  this  superstructure. 

Now  let  us  look  at  the  superstructure  itself.  It  is  a 
singular  affair,  I  assure  you.  In  one  place  he  tells  you 
that  w^e  are  to  be  buried,  and  we  are  to  be  buried,  why  ? 
well,  because  we  are  alive  to  Christ ;  we  have  professed 


DESIGN    OF    BAPTISM. 


265 


our  faith  in  Christ,  and  we  are  to  be  buried.  In  another 
place  he  tells  you  that  our  old  man  is  to  be  buried,  and 
then  we  are  to  be  raised  up.  What  becomes  of  the  old 
man  ?  Does  it  stay  there  in  the  water  ?  There  is  a 
want  of  consistency  in  the  theory.  The  idea  itself  is 
not  very  distinct  or  very  plain,  but  I  will  attempt  to  give 
it.  It  is,  I  think,  that  going  down  into  the  water  repre- 
sents the  death,  burial,  and  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ. 
These  little  inconsistencies  do  not  appear  at  first.  But 
when  you  come  to  look  at  it  after  the  fog  clears  off,  you 
will  find  that  it  changes  its  appearance  altogether. 

Now,  I  want  to  look  at  his  own  definition  for  a  few 
moments.  He  says  that  baptism  is  intended  to  show  the 
faith  of  the  subject  in  the  death,  burial,  and  resurrection 
of  Jesus  Christ.  This  is  his  profession  of  faith.  Now, 
I  want  to  know  one  or  two  things  that  are  not  expressed 
here.  I  want  to  know  who  intends  baptism  to  show 
that  ?  Mr.  Massey,  or  the  good  Lord  ?  He  does  not 
Tell  us.  If  Mr.  Massey  tells  me  that  he  intends  to  show 
that  forth,  I  say,  go  on  and  show  it :  I  have  no  sort  of 
objection  to  that,  I  have  no  sort  of  concern  what  he 
means  by  baptizing  anybody.  He  has  a  right  to  express 
precisely  what  he  chooses.  But  if  he  intends  to  say  that 
the  Lord  intended  baptism  to  show  that,  why  not  tell 
us  where  the  Lord  said  so  ?  Is  there  any  mistake  about 
what  the  Lord's  Supper  is  intended  to  show  ?  No. 
Why  ?  Because  the  blessed  Saviour  says,  according  to 
Matthew:  "Take,  eat;  this  is  my  body.  And  then  he  took 
the  cup,  and  gave  thanks,  and  gave  it  to  them,  saying, 
Drink  ye  all  of  this,  for  this  is  the  blood  of  the  new 
testament,  which  is  shed  for  many  for  the  remission  of 
sins."     St.  Paul,  in  commenting  upon  that,  says : 

12 


266 


DEBATE    ON    THE 


"  That  the  Lord  Jesns,  the  same  night  in  which  he 
was  hetrayed,  took  bread  :  and  when  he  had  given 
thanks,  he  brake  it,  and  said  :  Take,  eat ;  this  is  my 
body,  which  is  broken  for  you  :  this  do  in  remembrance 
of  me.  After  the  same  manner  also  he  took  the  cup, 
when  he  had  supped,  saying.  This  cup  is  the  new  testa- 
ment in  my  blood  :  this  do  ye,  as  oft  as  ye  drink  it,  in 
remembrance  of  me.  For  as  often  as  ye  eat  this  bread, 
and  drink  this  cup,  ye  do. show  the  Lord's  death  till  he 
come." 

There  we  have  divine  authority  for  that.  I  say  that 
the  blessed  Lord  intended  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  to  be  commemorative.  I  say  it,  because  the 
Lord  says  so.  Where  is  there  a  "  thus  saith  the  Lord," 
that  baptism  was  so  intended?  It  is  not  to  be  found, 
or  the  industry,  the  indefatigability  and  research  of  that 
good  brother  would  have  brought  it  up  here  and  nailed 
the  subject  fast.  Where  does  the  idea  come  from? 
Well,  he  quoted  this  very  sixth  chapter  of  Romans  to 
prove  that  baptism  was  to  be  performed  by  immersion. 
Now,  he  assumes  that  baptism  is  to  be  performed  by 
immersion,  and  then  brings  this  very  quotation  to  illus- 
trate what  he  has  been  arguing  to-day.  And  thus  he 
makes  this  poor  text  do  double  duty,  double  service. 

Let  us  go  on  a  little  farther.  He  says  baptism  is  in- 
tended to  represent  the  faith  of  the  subject.  Faith  is  a 
very  ethereal  thing  ;  thoughts  are  exceedingly  slim,  thin 
things.  How  can  you  represent  them  ?  What  repre- 
sents a  thought  ?  Can  you  tell  me  ?  I  am  thinking 
now  of  what  ?  You  cannot  tell  me,  and  I  could  not  tell 
you,  to  save  my  life,  unless  I  were  to  speak  a  word,  and 
then  probably  I  could  give  you  some  idea  of  it.     I  want 


DESIGN    OF    BAPTISM.  267 

you  to  represent  your  thoughts.  How  do  you  do  it  ? 
Represent  faith.  How  can  you  doit?  AVhat  sort  of  a 
thing  will  the  representation  be?  Oblong,  square,  cate- 
cornered,  or  a  diamond?  What  sort  of  thing  will  the 
pure  idea  of  the  mind  be  ?  But  he  intended  to  say  that 
baptism  was  intended  to  represent  the  object  of  the 
faith,  not  the  faith  itself.  The  object  of  the  'faith,  he 
says,  is  the  death,  burial,  and  resurrection  of  Jesus 
Christ.  That  is  the  object.  He  does  not  mean  to  say 
that  baptism  represents  simply  the  existence  of  these 
things,  does  he  ?  He  does  not  intend  to  say,  that  when 
I  believe  in  the  death,  burial,  and  resurrection  of  Jesus 
Christ,  I  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  did  die,  was  buried, 
and  did  rise  again  ?  There  are  hundreds  of  men  in  the 
world  who  believe  that,  and  my  good  brother  would  not 
immerse  them,  for  the  plain  and  simple  reason  that  they 
do  not  answer  to  the  character  that  he  requires.  They 
would  not  be  acceptable  in  the  sight  of  Grod,  and  there- 
fore would  not  be  accepted  by  him.  Baptism,  then, 
does  not  represent  these  facts,  but,  according  to  his  own 
definition,  it  is  intended  to  represent  the  faith  of  the 
individual  in  these  things  as  the  procuring  cause — he 
says,  the  procuring  cause — of  his  pardon  and  salvation. 
Now,  he  is  evidently  mistaken  in  that.  He  just  now 
said,  half  a  dozen  times,  that  he  did  not  believe  that  bap- 
tism produced  any  such  effect  at  all.  He  said  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  changed  the  heart.  And  then  he  turned 
around  and  said  to  a  good  brother  there,  ''  When  the 
Holy  Spirit  came  into  your  heart,  you  had  a  living  wit- 
ness." That  is  what  he  said.  Does  baptism  bury  a 
man,  or  raise  a  man  from  the  dead,  literally  ?  No,  cer- 
tainly not.     The  object  of  the  man's  faith  is  a  powerful 


268  DEBATE  ON  THE 

operation  of  the  Holy  G-host,  secured  to  the  man  through 
the  atonement  of  Christ,  through  that  as  the  meritorious 
cause,  and  the  Spirit  is  the  procuring  and  efficient  cause. 
So  that,  if  you  take  his  own  proposition,  you  will  find 
that  that  knocks  down  his  own  superstructure  and  all 
around  it.  Not  a  single  particle  of  foundation  in  the 
lexicons.*  And  as  for  these  poor  Pedobaptists,  they  have 
a  screw  loose  somewhere.  And  if  he  cannot  trust  them 
upon  one  point,  how  can  he  upon  another  ?  They  made 
a  mistake,  a  grand  universal  blunder,  right  upon  the 
foundation  of  the  affair,  and  he  brings  them  here  now, 
what  for?  Why,  poor  fellows  !  to  prove  that  they  made 
another  blunder.  They  were  wrong,  once  !  Certainly. 
I  think  that  is  as  clear  as  a  sunbeam. 

I  never  wondered  more  in  my  life  than  I  have  at  the 
course  pursued  with  reference  to  these  Pedobaptist  au- 
thorities. Is  it  possible  that  we  are  to  be  told  here  that 
here  are  good  men,  that  here  are  trustworthy  men,  and 
we  are  to  take  their  views  upon  this  subject,  when  their 
conduct  is  point-blank  against  those  very  views  ?  Now, 
must  there  not  be,  upon  the  very  surface  of  the  thing, 
some  misapprehension  ?  The  good  brother  takes  up  an 
isolated  passage  from  these  men,  and  reads  their  com- 
ments,  when  they  are  probably  giving  their  comments 
without  any  sectarian  or  controversial  notion  whatever, 
and  following  out  trains  of  thought  upon  a  thousand  dif- 
ferent things,  without  any  bearing  upon  any  particular 
subject  at  all.  And  when  they  come  to  look  at  this 
subject,  they  are  Pedobaptists  in  everything.  Yet,  ac- 
cording to  his  showing,  they  are  dishonest  men.  every 
one  of  them,  giving  countenance  and  support  to  what 
they  do  not  believe,  and  in  which  they  are  acting  con- 


DESIGN    OF    BAPTISM.  269 

trary  to  all  their  convictions  of  duty.  Do  you  believe 
it?  Is  this  audience  prepared  to  helieve  it?  I  trow 
not. 

Let  us  go  a  step  farther  upon  this  proposition.  I 
stated  that  this  was  Mr.  Massey's  confession  of  faith : 
that  when  he  baptizes  a  person,  he  says  he  baptizes  him 
that  he  may  show  his  faith  in  the  death,  burial,  and 
resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  as  the  procuring  cause  of  his 
pardon  and  salvation.  Well,  is  this  all  that  a  man  be- 
lieves whom  he  receives  into  the  Church?  It  is  not 
the  half.  There  is  not  a  single  man  that  does  not  be- 
lieve. He  believes  himself,  as  firmly  as  T  do,  that  the 
blessed  Redeemer,  whose  sufferings  and  death,  he  says 
— and  says  without  a  particle  of  authority  from  God — is 
represented  by  that  act,  he  knows  that  that  blessed  Re- 
deemer lived  eternally  with  God,  and  he  believes  in  his 
pre-existence  as  firmly  as  I  do.  He  believes  in  his  im- 
maculate conception.  He  believes  not  only  in  his  death, 
his  burial,  and  resurrection,  but  he  believes  in  his  glorious 
ascension ;  and  he  believes,  as  firmly  as  I  do,  in  his 
prevalent,  constant  intercession.  Now,  pray  tell  me 
upon  what  authority,  without  any  express  command  at 
all,  can  he  bring  baptism  here  to  express  only  three 
things  out  of  a  thousand  things  that  are  predicable  of 
this  very  same  Redeemer  just  as  well  ?  That  is  making 
a  selection,  it  seems  to  me,  without  any  very  good  rea- 
son. I  cannot  understand  it,  to  save  my  life.  I  do  not 
see  why,  for  another  reason  :  that  when  my  blessed  Re- 
deemer took  the  last  supper  he  gave  an  act  to  commem- 
orate his  death.  Here  another  one  should  be  introduced, 
and  by  whom  ?  I  do  not  know,  and  I  doubt  very  much 
whether  it  would  not  puzzle  the  world  to  find  out  who 


270  DEBATE    ON    THE 

introduced  it.  God  did  not  do  it :  certainly  he  did  not 
do  it.  The  Saviour  assumed  the  prerogative  of  appoint- 
ing a  commemorative  act  to  show  forth  his  death.  Does 
not  the  man  who  sets  up  another  act  for  the  same  pur- 
pose, step  too  high,  and  assume  the  prerogative  the  Lord 
assumed  ?  I  want  a  "  thus  saith  the  Lord'-  for  it.  The 
bare  deduction  from  a  passage  of  Scripture — which, 
when  you  come  to  look  at  it  in  the  light  of  a  sound  rea- 
son, so  far  as  it  means  anything,  means  something  else 
— cannot  support  a  dogma  like  this. 

Again,  there  is  another  serious  difficulty  to  my  mind. 
It  may  not  seem  so  to  him :  I  do  not  suppose  it  will. 
But,  "  I  baptize  you  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  of  the 
Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost  ?"  What  do  you  mean  by 
that  ?  Do  you  mean  to  represent  the  death,  the  burial, 
and  resurrection  of  but  one  person  in  the  whole  Trinity? 
Why,  then,  ''the  name  of  the  Father?"  Why,  then, 
"the  name  of  the  Holy  Ghost?"  Can  you  tell  me? 
Not  a  single  reference  to  either  of  the  other  persons  in 
the  adorable  Trinity,  according  to  the  good  brother's 
confession  of  faith,  in  this,  act  of  baptism.  He  is  not  a 
Unitarian,  or  a  Deist.  T\o :  he  is  as  genuine  a  Trinita- 
rian as  I  am.  And  yet,  w^hen  he  baptizes  in  the  name 
of  the  Trinity,  according  to  his  own  definition  of  bap- 
tism, it  is  downright  TJnitarianism,  Deism,  in  its  very 
essence,  because  it  makes  allusion  to  but  one  person  of 
the  adorable  Trinity.  He  does  not  mean  it,  never  upon 
this  earth;  he  could  not  be  capable  of  making  such  a 
blunder  as  that.  These  are,  however,  the  necessary  logi- 
cal deductions.  I  speak  as  unto  wise  men  :  judge  what 
I  say.  These  are  difficulties  he  has  gotten  himself  into  : 
I  did  not  put  him  there ;  he  has  brought  himself  there. 


DESIGN    OF    BAPTISM.  271 

There  is  another  difficujty  in  this  passage  of  Scripture 
that  he  quotes.  This  is  the  foundation  of  the  whole  idea. 
And  if  one  or  two  words  had  been  altered  in  this  sentence, 
probably  it  never  would  have  suggested  itself.  I  will 
read  the  whole  of  the  passage  from  the  sixth  of  Romans  : 

"  What  shall  we  say  then  ?  Shall  we  continue  in 
sin,  that  grace  may  abound  ?  Grod  forbid  :  how  shall 
we,  that  are  dead  to  sin,  live  any  longer  therein?  Know 
ye  not  that  so  many  of  us  as  were  baptized  into  Jesus 
Christ,  were  baptized  into  his  death  ?  Therefore  we  are 
buried  with  him  by  baptism  into  death :  that  like  as 
Christ  was  raised  up  from  the  dead  by  the  glory  of  the 
Father,  even  so  should  we  also  walk  in  newness  of  life. 
For  if  we  have  been  planted  together  in  the  likeness  of 
his  death,  we  shall  be  also  in  the  likeness  of  his  resur- 
rection :  knowing  this,  that  our  old  man  is  crucified 
with  him,  that  the  body  of  sin  might  be  destroyed,  that 
henceforth  we  should  not  serve  sin." 

Now,  I  leave  it  to  any  well-ordered  mind  to  take  these 
six  verses  and  read  them  together,  and  then  answer  this 
plain  and  simple  question,  whether  or  not  the  apostle  is 
not  endeavoring  in  that  passage  to  call  the  attention  of 
Christians  to  the  high  spirituality  of  the  religion  which 
they  profess?  And  not  only  to  its  spirituality,  but  also 
to  the  powerfully  renewing  and  regenerating  influences 
that  that  Christianity  was  intended  to  confer.  And  how 
does  he  argue  it  ?  "  Know  ye  not,  that  so  many  of  us 
as  were  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ  were  baptized  into 
his  death  ?"  Baptized!  does  he  mean  water  baptism? 
Certainly  not :  he  has  denied  that.  How  baptized  ? 
"  Baptized  into  Christ."  How  are  you  baptized  into 
Christ?  Paul  shall  answer:  I  will  give  you  his  very 
words  from  1  Corinthians  xii.  13 : 


272  DEBATE    ON    THE 

''  For  by  one  Spirit  are  we  all  baptized  into  one  body, 
whether  we  be  Jews  or  Gentiles,  whether  we  be  bond  or 
free  ;  and  have  been  all  made  to  drink  into  one  Spirit. 
For  the  body  is  not  ojie  member,  but  many." 

Then  ye  are  buried  with  him  by  baptism.  By  water 
baptism  ?  Buried  with  him  by  the  baptism  of  the 
Holy  Grhost.  Look  at  another  idea  contained  in  the 
very  same  passage  from  Romans.  Not  only  buried 
with  him,  but  you  are  crucified  with  him  ;  not  only 
crucified  with  him,  but  you  are  planted  with  him  ;  and 
not  only  buried,  crucified,  and  planted  with  him,  but 
risen  with  him.  How  ?  By  water  baptism  ?'  Never  ; 
never ;  he  himself  denies  it,  discards  the  idea  that  the 
apostle  meant  water  baptism  here.  It  is  the  baptism  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  upon  the  heart  of  the  man  ;  and  that 
very  moment  that  you  make  it  water  baptism,  you 
make  water  baptism  his  Saviour,  and  not  the  cross  of 
Jesus  Christ.  So  then,  the  apostle,  so  far  from  counte- 
nancing this  idea,  actually  and  positively  is  not  talking 
about  water  baptism  at  all.  And  if  you  had  asked  the 
apostle  how  that  Spirit  was  to  be  granted  to  you,  he 
would  have  told  you  just  as  John  the  Baptist  would 
have  told  you.  That  is,  that  the  Spirit  is  granted — 
never  baptized,  never  immersed — always  possessed, 
always  sprinkled  with  the  Spirit.  I  have  no  more  idea 
that  the  apostle  had  any  such  thought  in  his  head,  than 
I  believe  I  coincide  in  the  brother's  notions  upon  this 
subject,  and  I  know  I  don't. 

That  is  not  all  of  itj  though.  The  difficulties  about 
this  subject  thicken,  and  thicken  very  rapidly.  Sup- 
pose that  it  should  be  contended  that  it  was  water  bap- 
tism.    I  have  one  passage  of  Scripture  that  will  bring 


DESIGN    OF    BAPTISM.  273 

one  of  the  inspired  writers  into  very  great  difficulty  then. 
If  water  baptism  does  all  this,  he  will  not  contend  for 
it,  I  know  that  he  will  not — but  if  he  do,  I  would  like 
to  know  what  he  would  say  to  St.  Paul.  Paul  says,  1st 
Corinthians,  1st  chapter,  and  14th  verse  : 

"  I  thank  God  that  I  baptized  none  of  you  but  Cris- 
pus  and  Gains,  *  *  *  and  I  baptized  also  the  house- 
hold of  Stephanas  ;  besides  I  know  not  whether  I  bap- 
tized any  other." 

Oh,  yes,  says  an  immersionist,  why  not  give  the  rea- 
son ?     "Well,  here  it  is  ! 

"  Lest  any  should  say  that  I  had  baptized  in  mine 
own  name." 

And  does  he  not  also  say  : 

"  For  Christ  sent  me  not  to  baptize,  but  to  preach  the 
gospel." 

And  when  I  say  to  you,  and  say  everywhere,  when  I 
do  say  anything  on  this  subject,  that  I  regard  all  this 
controversy  as  amounting  to  nothing  at  all,  for  there  is 
no  reason  why  Christians  should  fall  out  with  each 
other,  to  fall  out  by  the  way,  I  shelter  myself  under 
the  broad  armor  of  St.  Paul,  and  say :  God  did  not 
send  me  to  baptize,  but  to  preach  the  gospel.  I  don't 
like  to  baptize  ;  to  immerse.  I  don't  like  to  go  down 
into  cold  water  and  immerse  people.  I  don't  like  to  do 
it  in  cold  weather,  and  I  won't  do  it,  I  think  1  have 
St.  Paul's  authority  for  that.  Paul  said,  Christ  sent 
me  not  to  baptize,  therefore  I  can  look  out,  and  view 
the  brother's  opinions  upon  this  subject  with  the  utmost 
composure  and  the  utmost  unconcern.  Why  ?  Be- 
cause I  think  they  are  all  foreign  to  the  man,  cutane- 
ous, lying  on  the  outside  ;  every  bit  of  it. 

12# 


274  DEBATE    ON    THE 

Again  (and  I  want  your  especial  attention  to  this, 
for  I  think  it  is  an  important  view  of  the  subject,  and 
one,  perhaps,  wl:iich  some  of  you  never  have  taken  be- 
fore) :  The  apostle,  in  this  passage  of  Scripture,  intend- 
ed to  introduce  the  very  strongest  views  upon  the  sub- 
ject of  spiritual  religion  that  I  think  can  be  evinced 
from  the  following  collection  of  passages  of  Scripture. 
I  will  call  your  attention  now  to  a  few  of  them.  The 
first  one  I  have  already  read  from  the  twelfth  chapter 
of  1st  Corinthians,  and  13th  verse.  And  I  will  read  it 
again,  just  to  make  this  comment. 

"  For  by  one  Spirit  are  we  all  baptized  into  one  body." 

Now  mark  you,  there  is  no  allusion,  and  I  do  not  sup- 
pose my  good  brother  will  say  there  is  any  allusion  here, 
to  water  baptism,  for  it  says  distinctly,  "  by  one  Spirit 
are  we  all  baptized." 

"  For  by  one  Spirit  are  we  all  baptized  into  one  body, 
whether  we  be  Jews  or  Grentiles,  whether  we  be  bond 
or  free ;  and  have  been  all  made  to  drink  into  one 
Spirit." 

Do  you  not  see  hov7  the  one  reflects  upon  the  other 
passage  ?  Again,  in  Gralatians,  second  chapter,  20th 
verse  : 

"  I  am  crucified  with  Christ :  nevertheless,  I  live  ; 
yet  not  I,  but  Christ  liveth  in  me  ;  and  the  life  which 
I  now  live  in  the  flesh,  I  live  by  the  faith  of  the  Son  of 
God,  who  loved  me,  and  gave  himself  for  me." 

Now,  here  is  one  of  the  very  figures — crucify — em- 
ployed in  this  verse  that  is  employed  in  the  sixth  chap- 
ter of  Romans.  And  the  brother  can  see  that  it  has  no 
allusion  whatever  to  baptism.  Another  passage  in  point 
is  in  Gralatians  iii.  27  : 


DESIGN    OF    BAPTISM.  275 

"  For  as  many  of  you  as  have  heeii  baptized  into 
Christ,  have  put  on  Christ." 

Certainly,  not  by  water  baptism. 

"  There  is  neither  Jew  nor  Grreek,  there  is  neither 
bond  nor  free,  there  is  neither  male  nor  female  ;  for  ye 
are  all  one  in  Christ  Jesus." 

Another  passage  to  which  I  wish  to  call  your  atten- 
tion is,  Ephesians,  second  chapter,  beginning  with  the 
first  verse  : 

"  And  you  hath  he  quickened,  who  were  dead  in  tres- 
passes and  sins ;  wherein  in  time  past  ye  walked  ac- 
cording to  the  course  of  this  world,  according  to  the 
prince  of  the  power  of  the  air,  the  spirit  that  now  work- 
eth  in  the  children  of  disobedience  :  amons^  whom  also 
we  all  had  our  conversation  in  times  past  in  the  lusts  of 
the  flesh,  fulfilling  the  desires  of  the  flesh  and  of  the 
mind  ;  and  were  by  nature  the  children  of  wrath,  even 
as  others.  But  God,  who  is  rich  in  mercy,  for  his  great 
love  wherewith  he  loved  us,  even  when  we  were  dead  in 
sins,  hath  quickened  us  together  with  Christ,  (by  grace 
ye  are  saved  :)" 

Not  by  water  baptism. 

"And  hath  raised  us  up  together,  and  made  us  sit  to- 
gether in  heavenly  places,  in  Christ  Jesus  ;  that  in  the 
ages  to  come  he  mis^ht  show  the  exceedinsf  richness  of 
his  grace  in  his  kindness  towards  us  through  Christ 
Jesus." 

No  less  than  two  of  the  very  terms  that  are  employed 
in  the  sixth  chapter  of  Romans,  are  employed  in  this 
sentence.     Again,  Philippians  iii.  8-10,  occurs  : 

"  Yea,  doubtless,  and  I  count  all  things  but  loss  for 
the  excellency  of  the  knowledge  of  Christ  Jesus  my  Lord: 


276  DEBATE    ON    THE 

for  whom  I  have  suffered  the  loss  of  all  things,  and  do 
count  them  but  dung,  that  I  may  win  Christ,  and  he 
found  in  him,  not  having  mine  own  righteousness,  which 
is  of  the  law,  but  that  which  is  through  the  faith  of  Christ, 
the  righteousness  which  is  of  God  by  faith :  that  I  may 
know  him,  and  the  power  of  his  resurrection,  and  the 
fellowship  of  his  sufferings,  being  made  conformable  to 
his  death." 

Will  anybody  deny  that  the  apostle  in  this  very  pas- 
sage is  arguing  precisely  as  he  did  in  the  sixth  chapter 
of  Romans?     Again,  in  Colossians  ii.  11,  &c. : 

"  In  whom  also  ye  are  circumcised  with  the  circum- 
cision made  without  hands,  in  putting  off  the  body  of 
the  sins  of  the  flesh  by  the  circumcision  of  Christ : 
buried  with  him  in  baptism,  wherein  ye  are  also 
risen  with  him  through  the  faith,  of  the  operation  of 
G-od— " 

Not  through  the  operation  of  the  minister's  hands : 

— "  through  the  faith  of  the  operation  of  God,  who 
hath  raised  him  from  the  dead.  And  you,  being  dead 
in  your  sins  and  the  uncircumcision  of  your  flesh,  hath 
he  quickened  together  with  him,  having  forgiven  you 
all  trespasses ;  blotting  out  the  hand-writing  of  ordi- 
nances that  was  against  us,  which  was  contrary  to  us, 
and  took  it  out  of  the  way,  nailing  it  to  his  cross." 

Another  passage,  and  the  last,  is  from  Colossians 
iii.  1-4  : 

"  If  ye  then  be  risen  with  Christ,  seek  those  things 
which  are  above,  where  Christ  sitteth  at  the  right  hand 
of  God.  Set  your  affections  on  things  above,  not  on 
things  on  the  earth.  For  ye  are  dead,  and  your  life  is 
hid  with  Christ  in  God.     When  Christ,  who  is  our  life, 


DESIGx\    OF    BAPTISM.  277 

shall  appear,   then  shall   ye  also  appear  with  him   in 
glory." 

Now  there  are  half  a  dozen  passages  of  Scripture, 
showing  that  in  this  sixth  chapter' of  Romans  the  very 
same  train  of  thought  is  followed  out  that  is  followed 
out  in  them.  And,  according  to  the  brother's  own  ad- 
mission, water  baptism  is  not  alluded  to  in  it  or  expressed 
by  it — or  rather,  it  is  alluded  to  in  it,  but  not  expressed 
by  it,  for  I  will  not  make  him  say  w^hat  he  does  not  say. 
One  would  suppose,  that  if  any  reference  at  all  to  bap- 
tism is  made  in  this  passage  of  Scripture,  it  is  to  the 
baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  and  that  if  you  were  to 
argue  anything  of  the  mode  of  baptism  from  this  sixth 
chapter  of  Romans,  that  mode  would  be  indicated  by  the 
manner  in  which  the  Spirit,  the  great  efficient  agent 
in  this  work,  carries  on  his  work.  That  seems  to  be  the 
strength  of  the  argument. 

And  another  thing  that  ^Ye  will  notice  just  here.  Ac- 
cording to  the  view  taken  of  this  question,  we  are  to 
predicate  immersion,  because  immersion  is  to  represent 
the  death,  burial,  and  resurrection  of  Christ.  Now,  Mr. 
Carson,  in  his  work  on  baptism,  says  "it  is  symbolical, 
and  if  symbolical,  there  ought  to  be  a  likeness  between 
the  mode  of  baptism,  and  the  death,  and  burial,  and  res- 
urrection of  Jesus  Christ."  My  friend' perceived  the  dif- 
ficulty in  the  way,  and  he  said  that  it  represented  the 
death,  because  a  burial  was  presumptive  of  a  death.  So 
that  he  himself  admits,  that  in  baptism,  though  it  be  by 
immersion,  there  is  no  positive  representation  of  death 
at  all.  Of  course,  that  is  evident.  And  it  only  construc- 
tively, inferentially  represents  death,  because,  forsooth, 
men  do  not  bury  people  until   they  are  dead.     But  if 


278  DEBATE    ON    THE 

they  should  happen  to  make  a  mistake,  and  bury  a  man 
who  was  not  dead,  what  would  go  with  the  presump- 
tion ?  So  tliat^there  would  be  difficulty  enough  right 
there  to  spoil  the  figure. 

But  look  at  another  thing.  We  say  that  it  is  intended 
presumptively — not  actually,  not  positively — to  repre- 
sent the  death  of  the  Saviour.  And  then,  I  suppose,  it 
is  intended  by  this  mode  of  baptism  to  represent  actu- 
ally the  burial  of  a  person,  and  the  resurrection  of  a  per- 
son. Now,  let  us  see  if  it  does  that  thing.  Why,  so 
far  from  doing  that,  my  own  impression  is  that  there 
are  some  very  strong  points  of  contrast  between  the  two. 
In  the  first  place,  there  is  a  very  strong  point  of  contrast 
in  the  materials  in  which  the  burial  takes  place.  The 
one  was  in  stone,  the  other  is  in  water.  And  there  is  a 
direct  contrast  between  the  administrators.  In  the  one 
case  it  was  Joseph  of  Arimathea,  a  private  person  ;  while 
your  baptism  cannot  be  performed  except  by  a  minister. 
And  then  it  is  an  official  act  on  his  part,  for  I  do  not 
suppose  the  brother  would  allow  his  lay  members  to  go 
and  baptize  people  everywhere.  Another  point  of  con- 
trast is  to  be  found  in  the  fact  that  Christ  was  buried 
because  he  was  dead  ;  but  the  brother  will  not  bury 
any  one  in  baptism  unless  he  is  alive.  Because  he  is 
a  believer,  he  says,  he  baptizes  him.  He  says  baptism 
represents  the  burial  of  the  old  nature,  and  that  the  new 
man  must  rise  out  of  the  grave.  I  do  not  understand 
that:  I  cannot  get  that  straight.  Again,  another  point 
of  contrast  is  found  in  the  fact  that  the  Saviour  laid  in 
the  grave  three  days,  and  his  subjects  of  baptism  do  not 
lay  in  the  watery  grave  three  seconds. 

Another  point  of  contrast  is  this — and  here  he  helps 


DESIGN    OF    BAPTISM.  279 

me  himself.  He  says  that  water  represents  purification  ; 
and  yet,  from  time  immemorial,  the  grave  has  represented 
pollution.  I  suppose  that  in  the  estimation  of  Paul, 
nothing  could  pollute  more  than  the  grave.  And  the 
idea  of  the  educated  Paul  using  such  a  figure  as  that, 
blending  together  the  very  emblem  of  purification  with 
the  synonym  of  all  that  was  impure  and  corrupt!  The 
Saviour  himself  looked  upon  the  grave  as  symbolical  of 
impurity,  when  he  says:  "outwardly  ye  are  as  whited 
sepulchres,  but  inwardly  ye  are  full  of  rottenness  and 
dead  men's  bones."  Again,  the  Saviour  rose  from  the 
dead  by  his  own  power.  And,  sometimes,  I  am  told 
that  it  takes  very  considerable  strength  to  raise  up  the 
candidate  who  has  been  immersed.  1  think  there  is  a 
contrast  there.  And  then  I  think  there  would  be  a 
stronger  contrast  between  the  appearance  of  raiy  Lord 
when  he  rose  from  the  grave,  and  the  appearance  of 
those  who  have  been  submersed  in  water!  a  stronger 
contrast  there ! 

And  then  again,  it  seems  to  me  that  this  is  a  pure 
question  of  fact,  as  he  has  presented  it.  It  is  narrowed 
right  down  to  this :  is  there  any  similarity  between 
leading  a  man  into  the  water  up  to  his  waist,  and  then 
throwing  his  head  and  shoulders  back  into  the  water, 
and  raising  him  up  again,  and  the  burial  of  Christ  ? 
Suppose  it  was  a  modern  burial.  There  would  be  a 
grave  six  feet  by  two  and  a  half,  and  four  or  five  feet 
deep ;  and  the  corpse  would  be  let  down  into  the  grave, 
and  the  dirt  poured  in  upon  it.  There  is  no  similarity 
there.  Look  at  the  burial  of  the  blessed  Redeemer,  and 
you  will  find  that  Joseph  of  Arimathea  went  to  Pilate 
and  craved  the  body  of  Jesus,  which  Pilate  granted,  and 


280  DEBATE    ON    THE 

he  took  it  from  the  cross  and  laid  it  in  his  own  nev/ 
tomb,  he^Yn  out  of  a  rock.  And  wdien  on  the  Sabbath 
morning  the  two  Marys  went  to  see  the  Lord,  to  their 
surprise  they  found  that  the  stone  was  rolled  away  from 
the  mouth  of  the  tomb,  and  the  body  was  not  there. 
And  they  went  back  to  tell  the  disciples,  and  met  Peter 
and  the  other  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved.  And  they  ran 
to  the  sepulchre,  and  the  other  disciple  did  outrun  Peter, 
and  came  first  to  the  sepulchre,  and  saw  the  linen  clothes 
lying  there, but  went  not  in.  But  Peter  looked  in,  and  saw 
the  place  where  the  Lord  laid,  and  two  angels,  one  at  the 
head  and  the  other  at  the  foot.  And  what  else  ?  The 
grave-clothes  laid  on  one  side.  Suppose  a  man  were  now 
to  make  a  grave  to  represent  that,  to  leave  room  for  a 
person  to  sit  in  it  at  the  head  and  at  the  foot  of  the  body, 
it  would  have  to  be  about  twelve  or  fifteen  .feet  long,  in- 
stead of  six  feet.  Lay  a  person  in  such  a  grave,  and 
roll  an  immense  stone  up  against  it,  and  come  away. 
But  how  did  the  Lord  rise  ?  You  and  I  will  know  when 
we  see  him  at  his  second  comins^ :  never  before. 

Now,  I  ask,  in  the  name  of  reason,  is  there  any  simi- 
larity whatever  in  taking  a  man  down  into  a  pool  of 
water,  and  putting  his  head  and  shoulders  under  that 
water,  and  then  raising  him  up  laboriously  out  of  the 
water  ;  and  the  taking  of  the  Saviour's  lifeless  body  down 
from  the  cross,  and  laying  it  in  that  new  tomb,  and  going 
away  and  leaving  him  there,  and  his  triumphantly  ris- 
ing the  third  day  ?  I  do  declare  to  you  that  it  is  one  of 
the  strangest  imaginings  T  ever  conceived  of,  that  any 
serious,  sober,  thinking  man  should  think  of  such  a 
thing.  And  these  great  men  would  never  have  gotten 
.into  that  error,  but  for  errors  co-existent  with  that — 


DESIGN    OF    BAPTISM.  281 

errors,  too,  which  he  deplores  as  much  as  I  do — which 
have  hrought  evils  upon  the  Church  which  it  has  never 
been  freed  from  to  this  day.  Now,  is  there  any  founda- 
tion for  it  in  fact  ? 

I  regret  that  I  cannot  say  all  that  I  intended  to  say 
before  my  time  expires.  But  I  will  just  say  this  in  con- 
clusion, reserving,  of  course,  what  else  I  have  to  say — 
for  I  have  not  said  all — until  after  we  shall  have  had  our 
intermission  and  he  called  together  again,  when  we  will 
take  up  the  subject  again.  Allow  me,  here,  just  to  call 
your  attention  to  one  or  two  points.  I  noticed,  first,  the 
solid  foundation  upon  w^hioh  all  this  superstructure  is 
built,  and  then  I  called  your  attention  to  some  of  the 
symmetry  of  that  superstructure.  There  are  one  or  two 
pieces,  as  I  have  shown  you,  which  have  got  cross-jostled, 
and  I  cannot  get  them  straight.  I  suppose  it  will  be  all 
straight  in  the  course  of  time.  But  so  far  as  I  can  un- 
derstand the  foundation  for  the  supposition,  which  my 
good  brother  has  made  (I  do  not  see  any  force  in  the  sup- 
position after  the  foundation  is  laid — if,  peradventure,  it 
be  possible  to  lay  it) — I  can  see  no  use  to  grow  out  of 
it,  unless  it  be  that  the  cause  of  immersion  does  so  much 
need  another  prop,  that  this  must  be  resorted  to  to  give 
it  that  prop. 

[Intermission.] 


MR.  MASSEY'S  SECOND  ADDRESS. 

Mr.  Massey  :   The   first  point  to  which  I  wish  to  call 

your  attention  is  the  reference  made  to  Dr.  Carson,  and 

that  portion  of  his  book  that  was  read  in  your  hearing. 

I  will  submit  to  you,  my  hearers,  when  T  shall  have 


282  DEBATE    ON    THE 

read,  in  connection  with  that  which  was  read  this  morn- 
ing by  the  respondent,  what  Dr.  Carson  himself  says, 
whether  you  will  not  agree  with  me  that  while  there 
was  no  statement  of  anything  which  was  not  fact,  there 
was  a  suppressio  veri.  Dr.  Carson  was  placed  in  a  false 
position  before  you.  An  impression  was  made  upon  your 
minds,  and  would  have  been  made  upon  any  mind,  that 
Dr.  Carson  never  would  have  made  if  fully  heard.  And 
this  I  call — I  will  not  say  what  I  call  it.  In  connection 
with  what  was  read  this  morning,  Dr.  Carson  says  : 

"  With  respect  to  the  primary  meanmg  of  common 
words,  I  can  think  of  no  instance  in  which  lexicons  are 
to  be  suspected.  This  is  a  feature  so  marked,  that  any 
painter  can  catch,  and  faithfully  represent.  Indeed,  I 
should  consider  it  the  most  unreasonable  skepticism  to 
deny  that  a  word  has  a  meaning,  which  all  lexicons  give 
as  its  primary  meaning.  On  this  point  I  have  ho  quar- 
rel with. the  lexicons.  There  is  the  most  complete  har- 
mony among  them,  in  representing  dij)  as  the  primary 
meaning  of  bapto  and  baptizo.  Except  they  have  a 
turn  to  serve,  it  is  impossible  to  mistake  the  primary 
meaning  of  a  word  commonly  used.  Accordingly,  Bap- 
tist writers  have  always  appealed,  with  the  greatest  confi- 
dence, to  the  lexicons  of  even  Pedobaptist  writers.  On 
the  contrary,  their  opponents  often  take  refuge  in  the 
supposed  sacred  or  Scriptural  use,  that  they  may  be 
screened  from  the  fire  of  the  lexicons." 

That  is  where  the  brother  took  refuge  to-day.  He 
agrees  that  Schleusner  gives  the  meaning  that  Mr. 
Campbell  and  Mr.  Rice  state,  and  then  adds,  "  but 
never  so  in  the  New  Testament."  Mr.  Schleusner,  as  a 
scholar^  says  baptizo  means  to  dip,  to  immerse  ;   as  a 


DESIGN    OF    BAPTISM.  283 

theologian,  lie  says  that  in  the  New  Testament  it  may 
mean  something  else.  A  beautifal  idea  that.  That 
house  spell  house  when  used  in  any  other  book  ;  but 
when  found  in  the  New  Testament  they  spell /t^/cZ  or 
garden.  That  is  the  idea.  You  are  not  to  determine 
the  meaning  of  words  in  the  New  Testament  by  their 
common  use  or  import.  That  is  where  the  brother  has 
taken  refuge  from  the  fire  of  the  lexicons.  Dr.  Carson 
adds  : 

"It  is  in  giving  secondary  meanings,  in  which  the 
lines  are  not  so  easily  discovered,  that  the  vision  of  the 
lexicographers  is  to  be  suspected.  Nor  is  it  with  re- 
spect to  real  secondary  meanings  that  they  are  likely  to 
be  mistaken.  Their  peculiar  error  is  in  giving,  as 
secondary  meanings,  what  are  not  properly  meanings 
at  all." 

Have  we  not  discovered  the  very  thing  that  Dr.  Car- 
son speaks  of?  They  give  the  meaning  of  the  word,  and 
then  give  as  a  secondary  meaning  that  which  is  but  the 
effect  of  the  first,  such  as  to  wet  or  moisten.  Take,  for 
instance,  Passow,  to  which  allusion  has  been  made. 
A  question  arose  about  Liddell  and  Scott.  The  gentle- 
man had  been  travelling  the  land  over  with  the  first 
American  edition  of  Liddell  and  Scott,  which  gave  as  a 
secondary  meaning  of  baptizo,  "  tct  pour  upon."  He 
brought  that,  he  affirmed,  "  from  the  University  of  Vir- 
ginia," and  would  fain  have  us  to  believe  that  such  was 
the  teaching  of  that  great  luminary  of  learning.  I  showed 
you  that  in  the  English  edition  of  Liddell  and  Scott  no 
such  meaning  was  found.  Bat  that  it)  the  first  Ameri- 
can edition,  the  American  editor  put  to  pour  upon  as  one 
of  the  secondary  meanings.     His   attention  was  imme- 


284  DEBATE    ON    THE 

diately  called  to  it,  and  he  promised  it  should  never  ap- 
pear in  another  edition,  and  in  the  second  edition  of  the 
work  it  is  not  to  be  found.  My  brother  attempted  to  get 
out  of  that  difficulty  by  asserting  that  the  lexicon  from 
which  I  quoted  was  an  '•  abridgment  of  the  one  from 
which  he  quoted — a  much  smaller  one.''''  I  turned  to  the 
preface,  and  showed  him  that  it  was  an  enlargement  of 
the  first  edition.  He  then  backed  down,  and  said  he 
was  mistaken.  The  question  then  arose  as  to  the  mean- 
ing in  Passow.  Two  gentlemen  took  the  question  to  the 
Professor  of  modern  languages  at  the  University,  and  it 
come  back  with  this  definition — [looking  among  his 
papers.] 

Mr.  CouLLiNG  :  What  are  you  looking  for  ? 

Mr.  M ASSET  :  For  the  definition  that  came  from  the  Uni- 
versity. But,  no  matter,  (I  do  not  pretend  to  quote  the 
exact  language,  for  I  do  it  from  memory).  "  To  dip,  to 
dip  into,  to  dip  under;  hence,  to  wet,  to  moisten,  to 
sprinkle." 

Mr.  CouLLiNG  :  [Handing  a  paper.]     Here  it  is. 

Mr.  Massey  :  [Reading.]  "  To  dip  into,  to  dip  under  : 
hence.,  to  moisten,  to  sprinkle,  to  draw  water,  to  baptize." 
These  secondary  meanings  are  such  as  Mr.  Carson  speaks 
of — really  no  m.eanings  at  all,  but  simply  effects  of  the 
meaning — wetting  "is  an  effect  of  dipping.  I  submit 
to  any  scholar,  if  that  is  not  the  correct  view  of  it.  In 
the  English  edition  of  Liddell  and  Scott,  neither  pour 
nor  sprinkle  is  given  at  all.  The  first  is  to  dip  ;  second, 
to  draw  water  ;  third,  to  baptize.  Now  you  see  that 
Mr.  Carson,  so  far  from  being  placed  in  a  proper  light 
before  you,  is  represented  as  saying  that  he  claims  that 


DESIGN    OF    BAPTISM. 


285 


baptizo  means  to  dip,  and  always  signifies  mode,  and 
that  in  giving  baptizo  this  meaning  he  had  all  the  lexi- 
cographers against  him.  That  is  an  outrage  upon  Mr. 
Carson,  which  should  never  be  perpetrated  upon  any 
man  ;  especially  one  who  is  in  his  grave.  He  never 
meant  to  say  it ;  he  never  did  say  it ;  it  is  not  the  mean- 
ing he  indicated.  When  Dr.  Carson  speaks  for  himself, 
and  explains  his  position,  he  shows  that,  as  far  as  regards 
the  meaning  of  the  word,  there  is  perfect  harmony  be- 
tween him  and  the  lexicons. 

I  wish  now  to  account  for  a  mistake  into  which  the 
gentleman  has  fallen.  I  think  I  can  do  it  in  a  manner 
which  will  show  that  it  is  a  mistake  of  memory — no 
intended  mistake.  He  has  preached  so  repeatedly, 
and  at  so  many  places,  upon  the  subject  of  baptism, 
that  it  is  very  easy  for  him  to  confound  what  he  has 
said  at  one  time  and  place  with  what  he  said  at  an- 
other time  and  place.  He  thinks  he  quoted  from  nine- 
teen lexicons  here.  I  would  like  for  him  to  tell  me 
ivhich  they  ivere  ;  ivill  you  give  me  their  names  ?  I 
have  not  found  any  individual  who  remembers  them. 
I  recollect  that  after  the  former  discussion  was  over,  I 
said  to  some  persons,  rather  playfully,  that  I  felt  very 
much  disposed  to  offer  a  reward  for  twenty -six  Grreek 
lexicons,  either  "  strayed^  stolen,  or  Zos^,"  somewhere  be- 
between  Mount  Moriah  and  Shiloh.  I  had  learned  that 
the  brother  there  claimed  that  twenty-nine  Grreek  lexi- 
cons sustained  his  definition  of  baptizo  ;  and  when  he 
claimed  but  three  here,  the  natural  conclusion  was  that 
somebody  had  purloined  twenty-six  of  them,  and  I  really 
felt  anxious  to  aid  him  in  recovering  possession  of  his 
lost  property.     But  (pleasantry  aside)  I  reassert,  in  the 


286  DEBATE    ON    THE 

most  emphatic  manner^  that  the  three  lexicons  to  which 
I  have  referred,  to  wit :  Schleusner,  Schrivellius  and 
Stephens'  Thesaurus  (Passow  having  heen  introduced  as 
I  have  ah'eady  shown)  were  the  only  lexicons  introduced 
by  the  gentleman  upon  that  stand.  If  he  choose  to 
make  that  a  question  of  veracity  between  us  he  can  do  so. 
I  say  emphatically  they  w^ere  all  that  iv ere  introduced  by 
him,  and  I  leave  it  to  this  audience  to  determine  between 
us.  I  say  this  in  all  good  feeling  to  the  brother  on  the 
other  side — 

Mr.  Anderson  (moderator)  :  In  my  opinion,  this  is 
not  in  order. 

Mr.  Massey  :  Is  that  the  opinion  of  all  the  moder- 
ators ? 

Mr.  Woods  bowed  assent. 

Mr.  Hansborough  did  not  respond. 

Mr.  Massey  :  Yery  well.  Perhaps  if  you  will  refer 
back  you  will  remember  the  contradiction  of  the  gentle- 
man to  the  assertion  I  made,  and  find  there  the  diver- 
gence from  order.  I  made  the  assertion  that  there  were 
but  three  lexicons  quoted  from  by  him,  and  he  contra- 
dicted my  statement. 

Mr.  Anderson  :  He  represented  you  as  being  mistaken. 

Mr.  Massey  :  /  represented  him  as  being  mistaken. 

Mr.  Anderson  :  You  make  it  a  question  of  veracity 
between  you  and  him. 

Mr.  Massey  :  I  said  if  he  chose  to  make  it  a  question 
of  veracity  between  us  he  could  do  so. 

Mr.  Anderson  :  You  made  a  banter  to  him  to  make  it 
a  question  of  veracity. 

Mr.  Massey  :  /  did  not  make  it  a  question  of  veracity. 
However,  I  will  proceed  with  the  argument. 


DESIGN    OF    BAPTISM.  287 

I  wish  you  to  bear  in  mind,  my  hearers,  that  there  is 
a  material  difference  between  a  man's  meeting  an  argu- 
ment lefritijuatelT/  -a-nd  logically,  and  his  introducing  into 
the  premises  of  his  opponent  what  he  himself  did  not  in- 
troduce there,  and  then  answering  that.  That  is  the 
course  that  has  been  pursued  throughout  this  discussion. 
The  gentleman  finds  it  difiicult  to  meet  the  arguments  1 
advance — to  meet  the  issue  really  presented.  And  hence 
he  changes,  to  a  very  great  extent,  the  premises,  and 
meets  other  issues  which  he  makes.  One  who  does  not 
critically  observe  these  things,  may  think  he  is  answer- 
ing what  /said,  while,  in  reality,  he  is  answering  what 
he  himself  said.  He  said  that  I  did  not  tell  you  who  it 
was  that  meant  baptism  to  show  the  faith  of  the  sub- 
ject ;  whether  myself  or  the  Lord.  If  he  will  turn  to 
the  proposition,  he  will  find  there  stated  as  my  convic- 
tion of  what  the  word  of  God  teaches,  that  Christian 
baptism  is  designed — designed  by  ivhom  ?  It  will  not, 
I  think,  require  very  strong  reasoning  on  the  part  of  any 
one  to  understand  it  as  designed  by  the  Institutor  of  the 
ordinance — designed  to  show  the  faith  of  the  subject  in 
the  death,  burial,  and  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  as  the 
procuring  cause  of  his  pardon  and  salvation. 

To  establish  that  proposition,  I  gave  you  the  testi- 
mony of  a  divinely  inspired  loriter,  Paul,  who  represents 
baptism  as  a  burial,  and  gives  as  the  reason  lohy  we  are 
buried,  that  we  are  dead  to  sin,  and  that  therefore  we 
are  buried  ;  and  that,  having  been  planted  in  the  like- 
ness of  the  death  of  Jesus  Christ,  we  shall  be  also  in 
the  likeness  of  his  resurrection.  I  presented  you  also 
with  various  other  portions  of  divine  truth,  and  then 
gave  the  testimony  of  the  most  able  commentators,  to 


288  DEBATE    ON    THE 

show  that  I  had  formed  a  correct  opinion  of  them. 
Now,  the  gentleman  says  that  these  views  never  would 
have  heen  entertained  but  for  the  fact  that  other  errors 
crept  into  the  Church  along  with  them.  I  do  not  know 
what  he  means  by  the  "  other  errors  that  crept  into  the 
Church"  with  the  truth  that  Paul  here  taught,  that 
baptism  was  to  represent  the  death,  burial,  and  resur- 
rection of  Jesus  Christ.  Paul  taught  that  doctrine, 
and  I  think  that  he  was  about  as  sound  as  almost  any 
other  theologian  ;  not  even  excepting  brother  Coulling. 
A  large  portion  of  his  address  was  devoted  to  the  effi- 
cacy and  the  importance  of  spiritual  regeneration. 
I  will  just  say  to  you,  my  brother — you  could  have 
saved  all  your  labor  and  arguments  upon  that  subject ; 
there  is  not  one  whit  of  contest  upon  that.  We  claim 
that  there  must  be  a  regeneration  jnior  to  baptism. 
We  protest  against  infant  baptism,  because  it  ignores 
that  truth.  It  ignores  the  truth,  that  we  claim  the  word 
of  Grod  teaches  that  there  must  be  a  change  of  hearty 
before  any  one  is  entitled  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism. 
Baptism  is  a  declarative  act.  Man  claims  to  be  saved 
by  the  atoning  blood  and  righteousness  of  Jesus  Christ. 
The  foundation  upon  which  all  his  hopes  must  rest,  is 
Christ  crucified.  He  claims  that  the  merits  of  Christ's 
life  and  death  are  applied  to  him  by  faith,  which  he 
must  exercise.  AVlien  he  has  exercised  that  faith  which 
secures  to  him  the  blessings  of  the  atonement  of  Jesus 
Christ,  he  then.,  by  this  act,  declares  these  facts.  The 
gentleman  asks — where  is  there  a  "  thus  saith  the  Lord" 
for  this  ?  Why,  the  very  foundation  is  laid  with  a 
"  thus  saith  the  Lord.^''  I  appealed  to  the  brother  over 
and  over  again  for  a  "  thus  saith  the  Lord"  for  infant 


DESIGN    OF    BAPTISM.  289 

baptism  ;  to  show  me  one  single  passage  of  the  New 
Testament  that  taught  it,  or  for  a  single  text  upon 
which  he  or  his  friends  relied,  that  had  not  heen  given 
up  by  Pedobaptists.  I  showed  him  from  Pedobaptist 
authority,  that  every  passage  upon  which  he  relied,  to 
sustain  infant  baptism,  had  been  given  up.  Has  he 
attempted  to  meet  that  ?  Not  to  this  hour  I  And  for 
the  very  reason  that  Jack,  a  naughty  boy,  ivould  not 
eat  his  supper.  Poor  boy  !  He  did  not  have  the  supper 
to  eat.  He  wants  to  know  where  the  word  of  Grod  says, 
''^  in  so  many  words,''''  that  the  design  of  baptism  is  to 
represent  the  burial  and  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ,  or 
to  declare  the  faith  of  the  subject  in  those  doctrines.  I 
would  like  to  ask  him  a  question.  I  suppose  it  is  fair 
for  both  sides.  I  find  in  the  Methodist  discipline,  on 
page  twenty-seven,  it  is  said  that  ''  baptism  is  not  only  a 
sign  of  profession — mark  the  words — whereby  Chris- 
tians are  distinguished  from  others  that  are  not  baptiz- 
ed, but  it  is  also  a  sign  of  regeneration  or  the  neiv 
birth.''''  "Will  he  shov7  me  a  ''  thus  saith  the  Lord''''  for 
that  ? 

He  next  argues  thus  :  "  Suppose  that  men  should  be 
mistaken,  and  bury  a  man  who  is  not  dead,  then  the 
whole  figure  is  gone."  Suppose  he  makes  a  mistake, 
and  applies  water  to  an  infant  who  has  not  been  re- 
generated. Why  then,  the  whole  sign  is  lurong ;  or 
suppose  we  apply  it  to  a  grown  man  who  has  not  been 
regenerated — they  say  "it  is  a  sig7i  of  regeneration'^ 
— then  the  whole  sign  is  wrong  there.  According  to  the 
gentleman's  own  showing,  there  is  no  sort  of  argument 
in  all  that  he  said  upon  that  point.  I  ask  you,  is  bap- 
tism a  sign  of  regeneration   when  applied  to  infants  ? 

13 


290  DEBATE    ON    THE 

Do  you  find  that  Pedobaptists^  children  are  better  than 
the  children  of  Baptists  ?  Are  the  children  of  Baptists 
either  more  innmoral  or  less  religious  than  those  of  Pedo- 
baptists  ?  I  am  willing  to  show  figures  with  them 
whenever  they  choose  to  meet  the  issue.  The  gentle- 
man inquires  Avhat  importance  is  to  be  attached  to  these 
Pedobaptist  authors,  whose  conduct,  he  says,  is  directly 
opposed  to  what  they  say  ?  Well,  that  is  a  beautiful 
mode  of  meeting  a  difficulty,  indeed  !  If  these  men 
were  to  practise  just  what  they  say  the  word  of  God 
teaches^  they  would  all  be  Baptists,  and  then  he  would 
say — "  you  cannot  introduce  them  because  their  testi- 
mony is  one-sided  testimony  :  they  are  Baptists,  and 
of  course,  will  teach  Baptist  doctrines."  Where  shall 
we  go  to  find  our  witnesses  ?  .  We  find  that  men  in  the 
Pedobaptist  ranks,  who  are  taken  as  standards  by  Pe- 
dobaptist churches,  when  they  come  to  explain  these 
passages,  admit  that  they  mean  what  we  claim  to  be 
their  meaning.  He  talks  about  reading  one  part  of  a 
man's  statement  and  leaving  out  another !  When  I 
come  to  a  passage  that  relates  to  baptism,  you  cannot 
expect  me  to  give  you  all  they  say  about  everything 
else.  I  give  what  they  say  about  baptism,  and  their 
testimony  overthrows  the  argument  of  my  opponent.  Do 
you  want  a  stronger  mode  of  proving  anything  than 
this  ?  If  they  are  not  to  be  relied  upon,  then  let  my 
brother  apologize  for  them  along  with  himself.  One 
trouble  will  answer  for  both. 

If  he  believes  that  the  New  Testament  authorizes  him 
■fe)  go  down  into  the  water  and  immerse  a  man,  I  ask 
you,  with  what  sort  of  consistency  he  can  refuse  to  bap- 
tize a  believer  who  applies  to  him  ?     He  says,  he  leaves 


DESIGN    OF    BAPTISM.  291 

it  to  every  man's  conscience.  A  man  comes  to  him  and 
says,  Sir,  I  want  to  be  immersed.  He  replies,  with  a 
shudder,  "  The  weather  is  too  cold!  I  cannot  go  into 
the  zvater.^^  Now,  if  it  is  enjoined  by  the  word  of  God — 
if  God  has  made  it  his  duty  to  baptize  at  all — personal 
comfort  ought  not  to  be  the  controlling  consideration.  If 
it  is  not  enjoined,  and  he  performs  it  as  an  act  of  Chris- 
tian worship,  as  a  minister  of  Jesus  Christ,  then  I 
ask,  by  what  authority  he  administers  it?  One  or  the 
other  is  wrong ;  both  cannot  be  right.  What!  preach 
against  an  ordinance,  and  then  administer  it !  !  Then, 
again,  he  will  not  administer  it,  because  the  iveather  is 
cold! !  What  kind  of  consistency  is  that?  If  our  Di- 
vine Master  had  acted  thus  with  reference  to  his  comfort 
and  convenience,  you  and  I  would  perish  in  our  sins ! 
He  would  never  have  left  the  shining  realms  of  heaven 
to  suffer  for  our  sins,  to  expire  upon  Calvary,  to  save 
you  and  me.  But  he  did  not  so  act.  He  came  not  to 
do  his  own  will,  but  the  will  of  him  that  sent  him.  If 
it  be  the  will  of  Grod  that  my  brother  should  immerse 
when  a  proper  candidate  asks  it  at  his  hands,  he  is  re- 
creant to  his  duty  if  he  does  not  administer  it.  And  if  it 
is  not  the  will  of  Grod  that  he  should  do  it,  then  he  is 
exceeding  his  authority  if  he  does  it  at  all. 

"Why,  he  asks,  do  we  baptize  in  the  name  of  the 
Trinity^  when  only  one  died?  Now,  is  that  logical 
argument,  or  is  it  sophistry  ? 

Mr.  CouLLiNG :  Will  you  allow  me  to  correct  you  ? 

Mr.  Massey  :  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  CouLLiNG  :  I  did  not  say,  when  only  one  died. 

Mr,  Massey  :  What  did  you  say,  then  ? 

Mr.  CouLLiN^G :  I  said,  why  baptize  in  the  name  of 


292  DEBATE    ON    THE 

the  Trinity,  when  you  say  that  in  that  baptism  you  rep- 
resent only  the  death,  burial  and  resurrection  of  one  of 
the  Trinity  ? 

Mr.  Massey  :  We  claim  that  there  is  one  who  died  for 
us ;  and  that  in  our  baptism  we  declare  our  faith  in  the 
glorious  truth,  that  Jesus  Christ  died  for  us,  that  he  was 
buried,  and  that  he  rose  again.  And,  because  of  this, 
the  deduction  of  the  brother  is,  that  it  is  '^  Unitarian- 
ism^  and  leads  to  rank  infidelity  l^"*  We  are  baptized 
into  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Grhost. 
Why?  Because  we  believe  that  Jesus  Christ,  Grod's 
only  Son,  died  upon  the  cross  for  us,  was  buried,  and 
rose  again  ;  and  that  he  designed  that  we,  by  this  ordi- 
nance, should  manifest  our  faith  in  these  glorious  truths, 
and  we  do  it  under  the  authority  of  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  G-host.  All  three  combined  to  approbate  this  divine 
ordinance.  So  far  from  its  being  a  denial  of  it,  it  is  one 
of  the  clearest  recognitions  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trin- 
ity. In  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of 
the  Holy  G-host,  I  perform  one  act — by  which  I  say  that 
these  three  constitute  one  God.  So  far  from  its  being 
an  argument  against  the  Trinity,  it  is  an  argument 
for  it. 

I  do  not  know  whether  it  was  expected  that  the  argu- 
ments made  \vith  regard  to  the  burial  of  Jesus  Christ — 
the  manner  of  his  burial  as  contrasted  with  the  manner 
of  baptism — would  be  regarded  by  this  audience  as 
claiming  any  notice  from  me,  or  whether  they  were  used 
merely  to  consume  time.  Just  look  at  it.  Jesus  Christ 
said  that  he  would  be  buried.  From  the  exposition 
given  by  the  brother,  Jesus  Christ  was  not  buried  at  all. 
"  He  was  borne  into  a  sort  of  chamber  by  several  per- 


DESIGN    OF    BAPTISM.  293 

sons,  and  laid  in  a  rock.^^  Now,  I  do  not  care  whether 
he  was  buried  in  a  rock,  in  the  earth,  or  in  the  water. 
We  speak  of  a  man's  being  ^^ buried  in' the  sea,''''  '•''buried 
in  the  ruins  of  a  house,''''  "  buried  in  the  earth,''''  &c.  It 
is  the  /ac^  of  a  burial,  and  not  a  question  as  to  the  ele- 
ment or  material  in  which  he  was  buried.  He  compares 
the  two,  and  would  have  you  to  think  that  there  should 
be  a  strict  resemblance  in  every  particular.  *'  They 
must  stay  three  days  under  the  water,"  &o.  I  should 
be  guilty  of  almost  as  great  folly,  if  I  were  to  offer  a 
serious  reply  to  these  remarks,  as  the  brother  was  in 
making  them  :  hence  I  shall  pass  them  by  without  fur- 
ther notice. 

Christ  said  of  the  bread  and  wine,  "  this  is  my  body," 
"  this  is  my  blood."  Luther,  in  his  controversy  with 
Zuinglius  upon  the  question  of  transubstantiation,  wrote, 
^'•hoc  est  corpus  meum,''^  before  him,  as  a  text  which  he 
never  would  yield.  "  This  is  my  body,"  said  he,  and  upon 
that  he  based  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation.  The 
meaning  of  the  text  is, ' '  This  represents  my  body."  Now, 
take  a  piece  of  bread,  and  find  a  strict  resemblance  be- 
tween it  and  the  body  of  Jesus  Christ :  take  a  little  wine, 
and  find  a  strict  resemblance  between  that  and  the  blood 
of  Jesus  Christ.  Yet  Jesus  Christ  chose  these  materials 
as  emblems  of  his  body  and  of  his  blood.  And  he  chose 
baptism  as  a  symbolical  representation  of  what  I  have 
already  spoken  of.  Now,  with  regard  to  the  idea  that  there 
must  be  an  exact  resemblance,  in  the  length  of  time,  in 
the  place,  in  the  putting  the  body  in  the  grave,  in  the 
pouring  in  of  the  earth,  &c.,  I  have  nothing  to  say.  I 
will  not  so  far  reflect  upon  your  intelligence  as  to  offer 
any  comments  upon  such  s®phistry. 
[Time  expired.] 


294  DEBATE    ON    THE 

MR.  COULLING'S  SECON'D  REPLY. 

Mr.  CouLLiNG :  One  simple  preliminary  remark.  I 
never  saw  the  day  when  under  these,  or  any  similar  cir- 
cumstances, I  could  raise,  or  debate,  a  point  of  ve- 
racity.    Those  are  questions  I  never  discuss. 

With  reference  to  my  misrepresenting  Mr.  Carson,  I 
wish  to  say  just  this  much.  I  protest  that,  if  I  am  com- 
petent to  judge,  I  have  done  Mr.  Carson  not  the  slightest 
injustice  ;  and  I  will  submit  it  to  any  intelligent  man 
who  will  read  Mr.  Carson's  work.  So  far  from  (like  a 
hyena)  infringing  upon  the  sacred  rest  of  the  grave,  I 
would  say  it  to  Mr.  Carson,  if  he  was  a  living,  breath- 
ing man,  right  before  me,  what  I  quoted  from  his  book  J 
and  if  I  misrepresented  him,  I  did  it  by  using  simply 
his  own  language.  A  misunderstanding  is  a  very  com- 
mon, and,  I  am  glad  to  know,  a  very  innocent  thing.  I 
frequently  feel  thankful  that  I  am  not  responsible  for  all 
the  blunders  I  make — I  mean  to  a  good  Grod.  I  honestly 
try  to  keep  right ;  I  never  expect  to  be  able  to  keep  from 
making  blunders,  until  1  get  out  (if  this  wicked  world. 
I  am  liable  to  them,  as  I  feel  every  day.  But  I  have  not 
made  them  here,  I  think. 

But  I  think  some  have  been  made  with  regard  to 
secondary  meanings.  You  hear  it  said  that  baptizo 
means  primarily  to  immerse ;  and  that  if  it  means 
to  wash,  or  anything  else,  that  is  a  secondary  meaning, 
and  grows  out  of  the  fact  that  to  wash  is  the  effect  of 
immerse,  and  thus  they  seek  to  destroy  the  character  of 
ihe  second  meaning  ;  and  whenever  water  is  to  be  ap- 
plied it  is  to  be  applied  by  immersion.  Now,  I  will  try 
to  show  you  the  error  of  this,  and  am  going  to  do  it  by 
the  very  man  I  have  persecuted  so  relentlessly.     I  am 


DESIGN    OF    BAPTISM.  295 

going  to  read  from  the  forty-fourth  page  of  Alexander 
Carson's  work  on  Baptism,  and  then  you  will  see  if  I 
can  be  justly  accused  of  misrepresenting  Mr.  Carson : 

"  Nothing,  in  the  history  of  words,  is  more  common 
than  to  enlarge  or  diminish  their  signification.  Ideas  not 
originally  included  in  them  are  affixed  to  some  words, 
while  others  drop  ideas  originally  asserted  in  their  appli- 
cation. In  this  way  bapto^  from  signifying  mere  mode, 
came  to  be  applied  to  a  certain  operation  usually  per- 
formed in  that  mode.  From  signifying  to  dip^  it  came 
to  signify  to  dye  by  dippings  because  that  was  the  way 
in  which  things  were  usually  dyed^  and  afterward,  from 
dyeing  by  dippings  it  came  to  denote  dyeing  in  any  man- 
ner. A  like  process  might  be  shown  in  the  history  of  a 
thousand  other  words." 

Now,  according  to  this  very  same  poor,  persecuted 
scholar,  here  the  very  root  bajpto  has  lost  its  original 
signification  altogether,  which  was  to  dip;  and  comes  to 
have  the  meaning  to  dye.  And  in  another  place  he  says 
it  means  to  sprinkle.  I  take  up  baptizo  that  was  in  use 
eight  hundred  years  before  Jesus  Christ  came  into  the 
world.  •  I  look  into  Passow's  Grreek  lexicon,  and  I  find 
that  Passow,  in  trying  to  find  out  the  meaning  of  baptizo, 
refers  to  Homer  and  Hesiod,  living  eight  hundred  years 
before  Christ,  and  Herodotus,  living  four  hundred  years 
before,*  and  there  he  finds  that  baptizo  means  to  pour. 
Rev.  Messrs.  Brown  and  G-ranberry,  with  the  aid  of  Pro- 
fessor Scheie,  examined  Passow's  Grreek  lexicon,  and  found 
that  it  gives  as  the  meaning  of  baptizo,  first,  to  dip  into, 
to  dip  under:  hence,  to  moisten,  to  sprinkle;  secondly, 
to  draw  water  ;  third,  to  baptize.  Now  it  is  contended 
that,  because  that  little  word,  hence,  is  put  in  there, ^it 


296 


DEBATE    ON    THE 


only  means  sprinkle,  because  baptizo  originally  meant  to 
dip  ;  that  is  to  say,  it  is  a  secondary  meaning  flowing 
out  of  the  original.  It  means  to  bathe,  he  said,  because 
originally  bathing  was  done  by  dipping.  It  means  in 
this  place  sprinkle,  because  originally  sprinkling  was 
done  by  dipping.  That  is  the  mode  of  argument.  The 
truth  is  this  ;  The  word  begins  with  one  meaning,  and 
then  one  thing  and  another  changes  its  meaning,  and 
finally  its  original  meaning  is  lost  altogether.  And,  just 
as  Mr.  Carson  says,  that  bapto  once  meant  nothing  but 
to  dip,  and  afterward  to  dye,  with  no  reference  to  dip- 
ping ;  hence  he  says,  it  means  to  dip,  and  afterward  it 
means  to  sprinkle.  It  may  be  said  that  that  is  the 
secondary  meaning,  because  the  word  hence  is  in  there. 

Again :  I  am  charged  with  placing  Mr.  Carson  in  an 
improper  position.  How?  Mr.  Carson  affirms  distinctly 
in  his  own  words,  that  all  the  lexicographers  are  against 
him,  in  the  position  he  takes,  that  baptizo  means  noth- 
ing but  to  dip.  I  refer  to  the  lexicographers,  and  I  find 
that  every  word  that  Mr.  Carson  says  is  just  as  true  as 
the  gospel.  It  does  mean  more  than  to  dip.  That 
is  all  I  contend  for ;  that  is  everything  I  care  for.  I 
care  for  nothing  but  that.  I  have  a  word  then,  which, 
according  to  the  very  highest  Baptist  authority — if  there 
is  anybody  higher  than  Alexander  Carson,  I  will  try  to 
get  him,  and  I  have  no  doubt  (it  will  be  a  marvel  if  I  do 
not) — that  I  will  find  just  such  concessions  in  every  other 
author. 

Again  :  reference  has  been  made  to  Liddell  and  Scott. 
All  that  I  contend  for  is  the  correctness  of  the  quotation 
I  made  from  a  lexicon  lying  in  my  lap,  and  I  read  it 
out  then.     They  say  that  I  quoted  from  the  first  Ameri- 


DESIGN    OF    BAPTISM.  297 

can  edition,  and  that  I  ought  not  to  do  that.  I  want  to 
know  why  ?  I  turn  to  the  original,  and  I  find  that  it 
means  there  to  sprinkle  ;  the  first  translation  of  the 
original  is  the  same  ;  and  it  is  Liddell  and  Scott's  pur- 
pose to  give  a  translation  of  Passow,  with  what  ?  "With 
addenda,  with  additions,  with  amendments  ?  If  it  be  a 
translation  of  Passow,  and  Passow  says  it  means  to  pour, 
or  to  sprinkle,  or  anything  else,  and  the  translators  do  not 
give  it,  is  that  my  fault  ?  If  the  man  Avho  brought  out 
that  edition  of  the  lexicon,  and  for  any  reason,  I  don't 
care  what,  keeps  in  that  book  that  English  preface  in 
it,  and  does  not  give  an  accurate  translation  of  Passow,  he 
ought  to  put  a  little  nota  bene  in  it,  and  give  his  rea- 
sons for  it.  He  owes  it  to  himself  and  to  the  world  to 
do  that.  But  I  do  not  care  anything  about  that ;  I  have 
gone  beyond  that ;  I  have  gone  to  his  father,  who  knew 
more  about  Greek  than  he  did. 

An  advertisement  was  about  to  have  been  offered  for 
twenty-six  lost  or  strayed  Greek  lexicons.  A  very  inno- 
cent and  a  very  natural  error.  In  the  discourse  that  I 
delivered  at  Mount  Moriah,  I  think  my  brother  said — 
and  I  think  those  who  heard  me  then  will  recollect — I 
called  attention  to  a  collection  of  versions  of  the  Scrip- 
tures. A  Scotchman  of  the  name  of  Gotch  had  col- 
lected, and  a  writer  upon  the  subject  of  immersion  in- 
serted them  from  his  work,  and  from  which  work  I 
copied  them.  And  in  examining  the  words  into  which 
the  original  has  been  translated,  I  find  twenty-nine  of 
these  thirty-eight  versions  on  my  side  of  the  question.  I 
asserted  that  at  Mount  Moriah.  But  that  I  asserted  any- 
thing about  twenty-nine  lexicons — why,  I  will  say  just 
this  much  :  I  confess  to  fa  libility,  but  I  certa,inly  do  not 

3* 


298  DEBATE    ON    THE 

recollect  it.  I  have  had  twenty  lexicons  collated  here 
in  this  book,  and  have  read,  again  and  again,  eighteen 
or  twenty  for  the  last  eighteen  months,  and  I  read  almost 
every  one  of  them  in  the  discussion  in  that  grove  a  few 
weeks  ago.  That  is  just  as  clear  in  my  mind  as 
that  I  was  there.  And  I  suppose  a  dozen  gentlemen, 
during  the  intermission  to-day,  told  me  that  they  recol- 
lected it.  They  said :  "I  understood  that  it  was  re- 
ported that  you  quoted  from  but  three  lexicons,  and  I 
am  exceedingly  glad  you  said  what  you  did."  And 
these  twenty-nine  versions  were  on  my  side,  I  affirm. 
And  if  it  was  proper,  I  think  I  could  demonstrate  that, 
to  the  satisfaction  of  most  people — to  some,  I  am  sure. 

My  brother  says,  I  asked  him  for  a  "thus  saith  the 
Lord,"  for  the  proposition  that  baptism  was  intended  to 
represent  the  faith  of  the  subject  in  the  death,  burial, 
and  resurrection  of  Christ.  And  he  says  he  brought  up 
an  inspired  commentator  to  testify  to  that  fact.  An  in- 
spired commentator  upon  what?  Upon  his  opinion. 
Well,  that  is  strange.  He  tjuotes  from  the  sixth  chapter 
of  Romans  as  the  foundation  of  that  very  opinion,  and 
then  gives  it  as  the  comment  at  the  same  time.  Does 
it  answer  both  purposes  ?  Well,  this  is  a  remarkable 
text  of  Scripture.  It  is  proven  by  it  that  baptism  by 
immersion  is  the  only  proper  mode  of  baptism,  and  bap- 
tism by  immersion  is  proven  by  it  to  be  the  representa- 
tion of  the  death,  burial,  and  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ. 
And  {St.  Paul,  while  giving  that  passage,  gives  a  com- 
ment too.  I  do  not  comprehend  that.  That  is  another 
piece  of  timber  in  the  edifice,  that  has  gotten  so  crooked 
that  I  cannot  place  it  straight. 

He  says,  he  asked  me  for  a  "  thus  saith  the  Lord,"  for 


DESIGN    OF    BArTISxAI.  299 

infant  baptism,  and  that  to  this  moment  I. have  not 
given  it.  A  brother  told  me,  daring  the  intermission, 
that  he  thought  one  single  passage  of  Scripture  that  I 
quoted  set  that  subject  at  rest  forever.  And  I  know  a 
great  many  thought  so  too.  And  that  one  passage  of 
Scripture,  though  it  did  not  in  so  many  v^ords  say,  the 
Lord  says  so  and' so,  yet  it  proved  the  baptism  of  infants 
so  plainly  that  they  saw  it  was  there  in  the  book,  and 
they  are  satisfied  it  is  there  in  the  book  ;  and  it  will  be 
a  hard  matter  to  dissatisfy  them  upon  that  subject. 

Pedobaptists  don't  act  as  they  believe,  and  I  have  put 
them  in  an  awful  predicament.  Oh,  no !  that  is  a  mis- 
take. I  say,  that  if  my  brother's  comments  upon  what 
they  say  are  correct,  then  they  are  put  in  a  right  bad 
situation.  It  takes  him  and  me  together  to  put  them 
in  that  situation :  not  either  of  us  alone.  And  I  do 
not  think  that  he  could  very  easily  do  that ;  for  if  he 
were  to  read  many  things  they  say,  I  would  not  wonder 
much  if  he  changed  his  opinions  about  many  things  in 
the  world.  I  am  sure  I  have  no  intention  at  all  of  re- 
flecting upon  them  in  the  slightest  degree. 

A  right  strong  appeal  is  made  to  this  congregation, 
to  know  whether  I  was  in  earnest,  or  whether  I  wa« 
speaking  against  time,  in  presenting  some  very  forcible 
views,  as  I  really  and  honestly  thought,  against  the 
hypothesis  of  my  good  brother.  His  hypothesis  is,  that 
because  in  Romans  you  find  it  written,  you  are  buried 
with  him  by  baptism  into  death,  therefore  G-od  designed 
that  baptism  should  represent  the  death,  burial,  and 
resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ. '  Well,  I  was  arguing 
against  what  ?  Against  his  interpretation  of  that.  And 
just  at  this  point  I  will  bring  forward   another  argu- 


300 


DEBATE    ON    THE 


ment.  The  Saviour  instituted  baptism  after  his  resur- 
rection. From  that  period  until  the  writing  of  the  epis- 
tles to  the  Romans,  I  think  something  like  twenty-five 
years  intervened.  1  think  this  passage  was  written  in 
58,  and  the  Saviour  was  crucified  in  33,  according  to 
the  general  account.  Now,  from  A.  D.  33  to  A.  D.  58, 
is  twenty-five  years,  and  from  the  institution  of  baptism 
by  our  beloved  Saviour,  for  twenty-five  years  people 
were  baptized,  and,  from  anything  in  the  Scriptures, 
did  not  know  what  they  were  baptized  for,  until  Paul, 
twenty-five  years  afterwards,  wrote  his  Epistle  to  the 
Romans.  Well,  they  must  have  been  very  much  obliged 
to  that  good  old  man  for  telling  them  what  they  had 
been  baptized  for ;  for  the  Bible  was  as  silent  as  the 
grave  as  to  the  import  of  baptism  until  that  time,  if  my 
good  brother  is  correct  in  his  hypothesis.  Now,  I  do  not 
say  that  is  the  import ;  he  says  so  :  I  am  on  the  defen- 
sive ;  I  am  not  to  prove  anything.  All  that  I  have  to 
do  is,  if  he  goes  wrong,  to  try  and  keep  him  straight. 
That  is  all  my  duty,  unless  I  voluntarily  go  out  of  that 
path  and  present  to  you  what  I  think  the  Bible  teaches 
upon  that  subject.  If  I  have  time,  I  will  do  so :  I  do 
not  know  that  I  will  have  time. 

He  says,  the  blessed  Saviour  predicted  that  he  would 
be  buried,  but  according  to  my  representation  of  the 
case,  he  was  not  buried  at  all.  I  do  not^^know  what  in 
the  world  I  said,  to  lead  him  to  make  that  remark.  I 
described  his  burial — yes,  positively  described  it.  No  : 
the  difficulty  in  the  way  is,  that  the  burial,  as  I  described 
it,  did  not  exactly  suit  his  hypothesis :  that  was  the 
difficulty.  And  because  it  is  not  just  such  a  burial  as 
he  desires  it  to  be,  it  is  no  burial  at  all :  I  suppose  that 


DESIGN    OF    BAPTISM.  301 

must  be  the  conclusion.  The  Saviour  was  buried  :  I  do 
not  deny  that  hypothesis,  though  I  have  now  a  paper 
upon  the  subject  that  did  deny  it.  I  never  embraced 
that  opinion,  and  the  brother  has  begged  me  a  great 
many  times  to  bring  forward  no  such  argument  as 
that.  I  do  not  intend  to  do  it.  I  believe  the  Saviour 
was  buried.  That  was  one  of  the  articles  in  the  Creed 
I  learned  when  I  was  a  boy.  Nothing  that  I  said  could 
cast  any  doubt  upon  his  burial,  though  I  think  what  I 
did  say  w^as  felt  by  a  great  many  people  to  destroy  ut- 
terly and  entirely  the  idea  sought  to  be  conveyed  here, 
that  baptism  by  immersion  is  like  it.  I  think  I  did 
that. 

Again,  he  asks,  where  is  the  resemblance  between  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ,  and  the  Lord's  Supper  ?  Well, 
I  am  not  responsible  for  that.  I  think  that  there  is  a 
great  error  in  the  world  at  the  present  day  upon  that 
subject.  You  know  the  Catholic  Church  believes  there 
is  a  resemblance  between  the  bread  and  wine,  and  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ ;  not  only  a  resemblance,  but 
they  contend  that  when  the  prayer  of  consecration  has 
been  offered  over  them,  they  lose  their  natural  character 
entirely,  and  become  to  all  intents  and  purposes  part 
and  parcel  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Jesus  Christ.  That 
is  the  doctrine  of  the  Catholic  Church,  and  that  the 
wafer  having  been  converted  by  transubstantiation  into 
the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  the  wafer  only  is  given  to 
the  laity,  while  the  ministry  take  both  the  wafer  and 
the  cup.  Now,  it  seems  to  me,  that  if  the  fault  of  too 
rigid  a  parallelism  lies  anywhere,  it  does  not  lie  upon 
my  side  of  the  question. 

I   believe  these   are   all   the   points   my  good  brother 


302  DEBATE    ON    THE 

made,  and  it  does  not  seem  to  me  that  he  has  got  any- 
where near  sustaining  his  position  yet,  that  baptism  is 
intended  to  represent  the  faith  of  the  subject  in  the 
death,  burial,  and  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ. 

Now,  I  will  go  on  as  long  as  I  have  time,  and  call 
your  attention  to  some  other  difficulties  that  occur  to 
my  mind  with  respect  to  this  view  of  the  subject.  He 
wants  me  to  receive  Christian  baptism  to  signify  my 
faith,  to  be  symbolical  of,  and  to  represent  the  death, 
burial,  and  resurrection  of  Christ.  I  before  remarked 
that  the  blessed  Saviour  instituted  one  ordinance  to 
represent  his  death.  I  need  not  repeat  that.  The  dis- 
ciples themselves  in  the  establishment  of  the  first  day 
of  the  week  as  the  Sabbath  instead  of  the  seventh  day, 
commemorated  his  resurrection.  We  have  divine  au- 
thority for  these  two,  and  we  have  these  institutions  to 
represent  these  two  events.  And  the  idea  of  represent- 
ing the  burial  of  Christ  is  to  my  mind  one  of  the  greatest 
novelties  I  ever  heard  of  in  my  life.  "We  commemorate 
the  birth  of  persons,  and  we  commemorate  their  great 
deeds,  and  we  commemorate  their  death.  But  who  ever 
before  heard  of  commemorating  the  burial  of  a  person  ? 
Is  not  that  the  first  time  in  the  annals  of  the  world's 
history  that  it  has  been  done  ?  Is  it  not  unparalleled  ? 
Did  anybody  ever  hear  of  such  a  thing  before  ?  Re- 
presenting the  burial  of  our  Saviour  !  And  yet  a  great 
many  good  Christian  people  are  blamed  and  regarded  as 
Popish.  Why  ?  Because  it  is  said  that  without  divine 
authority  they  celebrate  Christmas  in  commemoration 
of  the  birth  of  the  Saviour  ;  that  it  is  a  Popish  thing. 
They  celebrate  the  Epiphany  in  commemoration  of  the 
appearance  of  angels  to  the  wise  men  in  the  east.     All 


DESIGN    OF    BAPTISM.  303 

Popish !  And  they  celebrate  the  crucifixion  of  Christ 
upon  Grood  Friday  ;  that  is  a  very  Popish  thing,  an 
outrageous  affair.  And  because  they  celebrate  Lent  in 
commemoration  of  the  forty  days'  fast  in  the  wilderness, 
it  is  a  very  wicked  thing ;  no  authority  for  it  at  all. 
And  yet  without  any  authority  at  all  from  the  word  of 
Grod,  without  parallel  in  the  history  of  the  world,  we 
are  called  upon  gravely  to  celebrate  and  symbolize,  and 
commemorate  the  burial  of  the  blessed  Saviour.  Now, 
is  not  that  anomalous  ?  is  not  that  strange  ?  And  pray 
put  your  finger  upon  a  passage  of  Scripture,  that  refers 
to  the  burial  of  the  Saviour  as  conferring  any  especial 
benefit  upon  the  world.  He  died  for  our  sins  ;  he  rose 
again  for  our  justification  ;  he  ascended  into  heaven  to 
make  intercession  for  us.  But  what  passage  from  Gene- 
sis to  Malachi,  in  the  prophecy  of  God,  or  from  Matthew 
to  Revelations,  is  there  that  lays  one  single  particle  of 
emphasis  upon  the  burial  of  Christ  ?  Will  you  tell  me 
that  ?  And  yet  you  gravely  call  upon  me  to  represent 
in  a  Christian  ordinance  the  burial  of  the  Saviour.  The 
brother  says  that  God  says  so.  Well,  I  confess  that  I 
have  never  seen  it. 

If  I  can,  I  wish  now  to  present  to  you  what  I  regard 
to  be  the  Scripture  view  of  this  subject.  By  reference 
to  the  following  passages  of  Scripture,  and  collating  them 
together,  we  may  perhaps  derive  some  idea  of  what  the 
inspired  writers  affirm  of  this  doctrine  of  baptism  ;  what 
it  means.  The  first  passage  which  I  will  refer  you  to, 
is  in  Joel,  second  chapter,  28th  and  29th  verses  : 

"  And  it  shall  come  to  pass  afterward,  that  I  will  pour 
out  my  spirit  upon  all  flesh  ;  and  your  sons  and  your 
daughters  shall  prophecy  ;   your  old   men  shall  dream 


304  DBATE    ON    THE 

dreams  ;  your  young  men  shall  see  visions  :  and  also 
upon  the  servants  and  upon  the  handmaids  in  those  days 
will  I  pour  out  my  spirit." 

We  shall  find  that  prediction  verified,  presently,  when 
I  get  to  it.  That  is  a  prediction,  and  a  prediction  of 
baptism,  of  Christian  baptism.  In  Proverbs,  first  chap- 
ter,  23d  verse,  we  find : 

*'  Turn  you  at  my  reproof ;  behold  I  will  pour  out 
my  spirit  upon  you  ;  I  will  make  known  my  words  unto 
you." 

In  Isaiah,  forty-fourth  chapter  and  third  verse : 

"  For  I  will  pour  water  upon  him  that  is  thirsty,  and 
floods  upon  the  dry  ground  ;  I  will  pour  my  spirit  upon 
thy  seed,  and  my  blessing  upon  thine  offspring." 

There  is  a  prediction  ;  pouring  water,  and  pouring  the 
spirit  in  immediate  connection,  in  this  forty- fourth  chap- 
ter of  Isaiah.  In  the  thirty-second  chapter  and  fifteenth 
verse  we  have  another  passage : 

"  Until  the  spirit  be  poured  out  upon  us  from  on  high, 
and  the  wilderness  be  a  fruitful  field,  and  the  fruitful 
field  be  counted  for  a  forest." 

Most  all  these  are  predictions.  In  the  fifty-second 
chapter,  fifteenth  verse,  w^e  find  : 

"  So  shall  he  sprinkle  many  nations;  the  kings  shall 
shut  their  mouths  at  him  ;  for  that  which  had  not  been 
told  them  shall  they  see ;  and  that  w^hich  they  had  not 
heard  shall  they  consider." 

In  Zechariah,  twelfth  chapter,  tenth  verse  : 

"  And  I  wall  pour  upon  the  house  of  David,  and  upon 
the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem,  the  spirit  of  grace  and  of 
supplications  ;  and  they  shall  look  upon  me  whom  they 
have    pierced,  and   they  shall    mourn    for   him  as  one 


DESIGN    OF    BAPTISM.  305 

mourneth  for  an  only  son,  and  shall  be  in  bitterness  for 
him,  as  one  that  is  in  bitterness  for  his  first  born." 
i    In  Ezekiel,  thirty-sixth  chapter  and  twenty-fifth  verse, 
is  the  last  passage  I  will  read  now,  as  my  time  is  most 
out : 

"  Then  will  I  sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you,  and  ye 
shall  be  clean  ;  from  all  your  filthiness,  and  from  all  your 
idols,  will  I  cleanse  you.  A  new  heart  also  will  I  give 
you,  and  a  new  spirit  will  I  put  within  you ;  and  I  will 
take  away  the  stony  heart  out  of  your  flesh,  and  I  will 
give  you  a  heart  of  flesh." 

Now,  these  are  the  predictions  of  the  Old  Testament 
Scriptures.  Their  fulfilment  will  be  considered  when  I 
have  an  opportunity  to  address  you  again. 

[Time  expired.] 


MR.  MASSEY'S  THIRD  ADDRESS. 

Mr.  Massey  :  After  hearing  the  explanation  made  by 
the  gentleman  to  the  moderators,  I  am  free  to  say  I 
would  not  have  expressed  myself  as  strongly  as  I  did, 
had  /understood  him  as  thep seemed  to  understand  him 
with  regard  to  the  question  of  veracity.  My  language 
will  clearly  indicate  what  my  views  were.  I  had  stated 
that  the  gentleman  quoted  from  but  three  lexicons  on  a 
former  occasion.  I  understood  him  to  contradict  my 
statement  flatly,  I  inquired  of  various  persons  who 
heard  him,  whether  their  recollection  and  mine  corres- 
ponded, and  I  have  not  found  a  single  exception  to  it. 
I  then  restated  what  I  had  said,  with  the  addition,  that 
if  he  chose — (as  I  understood  him  to  make  that  issue) — if 
he  chose  to  make  it  a  question  of  veracity,  he  was  at 


306 


DEBATE    ON    THE 


liberty  to  do  so.  Had  I  understood  the  matter  as  tl\e 
moderators  understood  it,  I  should  not  have  expressed 
myself  so  strongly. 

If^  in  the  course  of  my  remarks,  I  used  the  word  di- 
vine commentator  instead  of  divine  writer^  when  speak- 
ing of  Paul,  (which  I  do  not  think  I  did,)  I  made  a  ver- 
bal mistake.  That  I  leave  as  a  matter  of  no  moment — 
as  all  others  understood  my  meaning. 

The  next  point  T  desire  to  notice  in  the  gentleman's 
address  is,  that  "  Jesus  Christ  was  buried,  because  he  was 
dead  ;  and  we  bury  a  man  in  baptism  because  he  is  alive!''' 
I  think  my  remarks  are  sufficiently  in  the  minds  of  all  who 
heard  me.  They  understood  me  to  declare,  that  a  burial 
evi?ices  the  fact,  or  presupposes  the  fact  of  a  death,  and 
I  will  not  occupy  your  time  in  noticing  that  further. 

I  was  a  little  amused  at  the  remark  of  the  gentleman, 
that  the  raising  the  body  of  Jesus  Christ  was  by  the 
power  of  Grod  ;  and  the  raising  of  the  subject  of  bap- 
tism was  by  the  power  of  man,  and  that  it  was  very 
hard  work  to  raise  the  subject  out  of  the  water.  I  take 
it  for  granted  that  my  brother  has  not  practiced  that 
much.  I  have  baptized  some  pretty  large  persons,  some 
that  weighed  over  two  hundred  and  twenty-five  pounds, 
and  I  did  it  with  perfect  ease.  I  never  yet  found  any  diffi- 
culty in  administering  the  ordinance  of  baptism.  And  if 
the  brother  will  practise  it  until  he  understands  it  and  en- 
joys it,  he  will  find  no  difficulty.  But,  I  will  tell  you  what 
is  difficult.  That  work  that  goes  against  the  will  is  always 
hard,  and  I  doubt  not  that  he  finds  it  rig'ht  hard  ivork  to 
baptize  believers  after  the  New  Testament  plan.  He  re- 
fers again  to  Liddell  and  Scott,  and  says,  that  betakes  up 
the  translation,  and  finds  in  it  to  sprinkle  ;  and  he  turns  to 


DESIGN    OF    BAPTISM.  307 

the  original,  and  tinds  in  that  to  sprinkle.  The  English 
edition,  as  translated  from  the  Grerman,  has  no  such  thing 
as  sprinkle  in  it.  The  first  American  edition — the  very 
one  from  which  the  brother  quoted — has  no  such  thing 
in  it.  It  has  "  to  pour  upon"  as  a  secondary  meaning 
of  baptizo,  but  not  to  sprinkle. 

The  second  Arherican  edUion — the  enlarged  and  cor- 
rected edition — has  neither  to  sprinkle  nor  to  pour  in  it. 
He  is  mistaken  there  again.  Now,  to  shoAV  that  this 
son  was  not  exactly  copying  after  his  father,  as  the  gen- 
tleman would  have  you  believe  he  was,  we  find  that  the 
American  edition,  which  claims  to  be  a  copy  of  the  Eng- 
lish translation  from  the  Grerman,  gives  a  meaning  not 
found  in  either  of  the  others. 

The  gentleman  turns  to  the  prophecy  of  Joel  for  a  pre- 
diction of  Christian  baptism.  Any  one  listening  to  him 
to-day,  would  very  readily  come  to  the  conclusion  that 
he  ignored  water  baptism  altogether.  The  various  prophe- 
cies he  has  referred  to  have  nothing  whatever  to  do  with 
water  baptism.  They  are  declarations  of  the  profusion 
with  which  the  holy  spirit  should  be  dispensed  to  men. 
Predictions  that  the  time  should  come  when  the  spirit 
of  Grod  should  come  in  such  profusion  that  men  should 
be  ''  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost."  It  is  said  that  the 
Holy  Ghost  was  "  shed  down" — was  "  poured  out,"  &c. 
We  know  that  these  are  merely  metaphorical  terms. 
The  Holy  Ghost  is  the  third  Person  in  the  Trinity^  not 
a  material  thing  to  be  literally  poured  out.  His  influ- 
ence shall  come  down  upon  us,  and  enter  into  our  hearts. 
The  prophecy  of  Isaiah,  with  regard  to  the  sprinkling  of 
man}'  nations,  has  no  reference  whatever  to  the  ordi- 
nance of  baptism — not  the  slightest  allusion  to  it.     Wlio 


308  DEBATE    ON    THE 

shall  sprinkle  many  nations  ?  Did  Jesus  Christ  baptize 
any  ?  He  never  administered  the  rite  of  baptism  to  any 
human  being  I  Grod  speaks  here  of  what  He  will  do 
Himself.  There  is  also  a  question  (of  which  the  gentle- 
man, no  doubt,  is  aware)  as  to  the  correctness  of  the 
rendering  of  the  passage  he  read.  It  is  claimed  by  high 
authority,  and  it  can  be  sustained,  that  the  proper  render- 
ing of  it  is,  "  So  shall  he  (thaumasontai)  astonish  many 
nations  ;  the  kings  shall  shut  their  mouths  at  him,"  &c. 
The  idea  of  baptism  has  no  connection  whatever  with 
the  subject. 

As  my  time  is  limited,  I  must  proceed  to  the  direct 
argument.  And  then  (if  I  have  time)  I  will  notice  some 
other  things  the  gentleman  has  said.  I  have  already 
called  your  attention  to  a  passage  in  1  John  v.  8  :; 

^'And  there  are  three  that  bear  witness  in  earth,  the 
Spirit,  and  the  w^ater,  and  the  blood ;  and  these  three 
agree  in  one.'' 

I  have  affirmed,  as  my  view  of  this  passage,  that  it 
represents  baptism  as  a  living  witness  of  the  truths  to 
which  I  have  called  your  attention.  To  show  you  that 
I  am  not  alone  in  this  exposition,  I  might  quote  various 
authorities,  but,  as  I  have  not  the  time,  I  will  only  call 
your  attention  to  what  Dr.  McKnight  says  upon  this 
passage.     In  his  "Apostolic  Epistles,"  he  says: 

*'TAe  water:  that  is,  the  rite  of  baptism  regularly 
administered  in  the  Christian  Church  to  the  end  of  the 
world,  witnesseth  continually  on  earth  that  G-od  hath 
given  us  eternal  life,  through  his  Son.  For  baptism  be- 
ing instituted  in  commemoration  of  Christ's  resurrection, 
and  to  be  an  emblematical  representation  of  our  owm 
resurrection,  the  continued  administration  of  it  in  the 


DESIGN    OF    BAPTISM.  809 

name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  is  a  solemn 
assurance  of  our  obtaining  eternal  life  through  the  Son. 
So  St.  Paul  informs  us,  Rom.  vi.  4:  "TFe  have  been 
buried  together  with  him  by  baptism  into  his  deaths 
that  like  as  Christ  was  raised  up  from  the  dead  by  the 
glory  of  the  Father^  even  so  we  also  shall  walk  in  a 
new  life.'''' 

^'  And  the  blood.  As  the  water  signifies  the  rite  of  bap- 
tism continually  administered  in  the  Church,  in  com- 
memoration of  Christ's  resurrection,  and  for  a  pledge  of  our 
own  resurrection  to  eternal  life,  so  the  blood  signifies  that 
commemoration  of  the  shedding  of  the  blood  of  Christ  for 
the  remission  of  sin,  which  is  daily  made  in  the  Lord's 
Supper.  Wherefore  as  the  remission  of  sin  will  be  fol- 
lowed with  the  gift  of  eternal  life,  the  blood,  that  is  the 
Lord's  Supper,  often  celebrated  throughout  the  Christian 
world,  is  a  continual  witness  on  earth,  that  Grod  hath 
given  us  eternal  life  through  his  Son." 

And  yet  Mr.  CouUing  thinks  it  an  exceedingly  novel 
d(fctrine — one  (you  would  suppose  from  what  he  said) 
that  was  introduced  but  yesterday. 

Another  passage  which  was  referred  to,  is  Colossians 
ii.  11-13, 

"  In  whom  also  ye  are  circumcised  with  the  circum- 
cision made  without  hands,  in  putting  off  the  body  of 
the  sins  of  the  flesh  by  the  circumcision  of  Christ : 
buried  with  him  in  baptism,  wherein  also  ye  are  risen 
with  him  through  the  faith  of  the  operation  of  God, 
who  hath  raised  him  from  the  dead.  And  you,  being 
dead  in  your  sins  and  the  unoircumcision  of  your  flesh, 
hath  he  quickened  together  with  him,  having  forgiven 
you  all  trespasses." 


310  DEBATE    ON    THE 

Now,  observe  that  the  apostle  here  presents  the  very 
idea  for  which  I  am  contending  :  that  there  is  in  the 
heart  that  circumcision  which  is  inward  in  the  spirit^ 
not  outward  in  the  flesh:  there  is  a  change  of  heart 
wrought,  by  which  the  man  is  declared  to  have  put  off 
the  old  man  with  his  deeds,  and  to  have  become  a  new 
creature  in  Christ  Jesus.  When  this  has  been  effected, 
then  follows — "  buried  with  him  in  baptism,  wherein 
also  ye  are  risen  with  him,  through  the  faith  of  the 
operation  of  Grod,  who  hath  raised  him  from  the  dead." 
Dr.  Clarke  says : 

*^ Buried  with  him  in  baptism.]  Alluding  to  the  im- 
mersions practised  in  the  case  of  adults,  wherein  the 
person  appeared  to  be  buried  under  the  water,  as  Christ 
was  buried  in  the  heart  of  the  earth.  His  rising  again 
the  third  day,  and  their  emerging  from  the  water,  was 
an  emblem  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  and,  in  them, 
of  a  total  change  of  life." 

And  yet  my  brother,  who  had  to  study  this  as  a  book 
of  reference  on  Bible  interpretation,  for  four  years  before 
he  received  holy  orders — 

Mr.  CouLLiNG :  No,  sir ;  it  was  not  the  law  of  the 
Church  then. 

Mr.  Massey  :  Is  it  not  now  ? 

Mr.  CouLLiNG  :  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Massey  :  Are  not  your  young  men  required  to 
study  "  Clarke's  Commentaries"  now? 

Mr.  CouLLiNG :  I  will  say  to  the  gentleman  that  I  am 
obliged  to  him  for  calling  my  attention  to  this,  because 
a  great  many  people  do  not  understand  it.  The  young 
men  who  join  the  itinerancy  are  required  to  pursue  a 
course  o^  study  appointed  year  after  year  by  the  bishops 


DESIGN    OF    BAPTISM.  311 

of  the  Church.  They  will  have,  for  instance,  doctrines 
with  reference  to  the  Bible,  one  year ;  and  then  some 
other  studies,  Clarke's  Commentaries,  "Wesley's  Notes,  &c. 
I  suppose  that,  one  year  out  of  the  four.  Dr.  Clarke  is  a 
reference  book  in  that  way.  I  do  not  know  that  I  looked 
into  it,  except  occasionally,  while  I  was  a  probationer. 

Mr.  Massey  :  I  was  sincerely  stating  what  I  under- 
stood to  be  the  law  of  his  Church.  It  appears  that  this 
was  not  the  law  when  Mr.  Couiling  was  a  young  man : 
hence  he  has  not  looked  into  it — has  not  studied  it  prop- 
erly ;  if  he  had  studied  it  a  little  more^  I  think  he  would 
have  heard  of  this  doctrine  before,  which  he  seems  to 
think  is  so  new  and  novel  now.  It  is  known  to  many 
others  in  the  Church,  and  it  was  fair  to  premise  that 
he,  as  a  teacher  in  Israel,  knew  what  his  own  teachers 
taught. 

Here  is  an  exposition  of  the  passage  by  Dr.  McKnight, 
a  commentator  still  older  than  Dr.  Clarke  : 

"  Being  buried  with  Imn  in  baptism.]  Christ  began 
his  ministry  with  receiving  baptism  from  John,  to  show, 
in  an  emblematical  manner,  that  he  was  to  die,  and  to 
rise  again  from  the  dead.  And  after  his  resurrection,  he 
commanded  his  disciples  to  initiate  mankind  into  his 
religion,  by  baptizing  them,  as  he  himself  had  been 
baptized  ;  to  show\  that  although  they  shall  die,  like 
him,  through  the  malignity  of  sin,  yet,  as  certainly  as 
he  rose  from  the  dead,  believers  shall  be  raised  at  the 
last  day,  with  bodies  fashioned  like  to  his  glorious  body. 
Wherefore,  his  disciples  having  been  baptized,  as  he 
was,  and  for  the  very  same  purpose,  they  are  fitly  said 
to  be  buried  with  Christ  in  baptism  ;  and  in  baptism  to 
be  raised  with  him." 


312  DEBATE    ON    THE 

It  is  remarkable  that  other  men  can  see  so  clearly  the 
teaching  of  these  passages  ;  and  yet,  that  the  gentle- 
man seems  to  look  upon  it  as  something  novels  extraor- 
dinary^ wonderful  beyond  all  conception^  that  such  an 
idea  could  ever  he  deduced  from  the  plain  passages  of 
divine  inspiration  !  It  is  not  my  business  to  account  for 
that.  I  cannot  tell  why  he  has  not  comprehended  the 
truth  taught  in  those  passages.  I  have  no  authority  to 
confer  upon  him  ability  to  understand  what  other  men 
understand  so  clearly.  I  must  leave  him  to  grapple 
with  that  misfortune  as  best  he  can.  I  not  only  show 
you  what  I  believe  the  word  of  God  teaches,  but  that 
my  views  of  it  are  sustained  by  the  ablest  commenta- 
tors in  his  own  Church.  If  he  takes  issue  with  them^ 
I  am  perfectly  willing  for  him  to  do  so. 

Colossians  iii.  1-3  reads : 

"If  ye  then  be  risen  with  Christ,  seek  those  things 
which  are  above,  where  Christ  sitteth  on  the  right  hand 
of  G-od.  Set  your  affections  on  things  above,  not  on 
things  on  the  earth.  For  ye  are  dead,  and  your  life  is 
hid  with  Christ  in  God." 

Dr.  McKnight  says  upon  this  passage  :  , 

"  In  the  12th  verse  of  the  preceding  chapter  the  apos- 
tle had  told  the  Colossians,  that  they  had  been  buried 
with  Christ  in  the  water  of  baptism  as  dead  persons,  in 
token  of  their  relinquishing  their  former  principles  and 
practices  ;  and  that  in  baptism  likewise,  they  had  been 
raised  out  of  the  water  with  Christ,  as  an  emblem  and 
pledge  of  their  resurrection  with  him  to  eternal  life. 
The  former  of  these  doctrines  the  apostle  had  applied, 
chapter  ii.  20,  to  show  the  Colossians  the  absurdity  of 
subjecting  themselves  to  the  ritual  precepts,  from  which 


DESIGN    OF    BAPTISM. 


313 


they  had  been  freed  by  their  death  with  Christ.  And 
now,  as  the  application  of  the  latter  doctrine,  he  told 
them  in  the  first  verse  of  this  chapter,  that  since  they 
had  been  raised  with  Christ  out  of  the  water  of  bap- 
tism, and  thereby  had  professed  their  hope  of  being 
raised  with  him  to  an  eternal  life  in  the  body,  they  were 
bound  to  do  their  utmost,  by  faith  and  holiness,  to  ob- 
tain the  possession  of  the  joys  of  heaven,  where  Christ 
now  sitteth  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  vested  with  full 
power  to  bestow  these  joys  on  all  who  are  capable  of 
receiving  them." 

While  I  think  of  it,  I  will  mal^e  a  single  remark  upon 
the  comments  of  the  gentleman  with  regard  to  Paul's 
saying — "  Jesus  Christ  sent  me  not  to  baptize,  but  to 
preach  the  gospel."  There  were  strifes  and  divisions  in 
the  Church  to  which  he  was  writing.  And  Paul  said 
— "  I  thank  Grod  that  I  baptized  none  of  you  but  Cris- 
pus  and  Grains  ;  lest  any  should  say  that  I  had  baptized 
in  mine  own  name."  He  did  not  wish  to  be  connected 
with  the  divisions  and  contentions  then  prevailing ; 
there  were  false  doctrines  going  forth,  and  it  might  be 
charged  that  he  had  given  encouragement  to  them  ; 
hence  he  says,  ''  Christ  sent  me  not  to  baptize  but  to 
preach ;"  or,  as  Dr.  Clarke  explains  it,  "  not  so  much 
for  baptizing  as  for  preaching."  The  great  and  princi- 
pal work  of  the  Christian  ministry  is  to  preach  the  gos- 
pel, as  I  endeavored  to  show  you  before  ;  to  ''  Go,  and 
teach  all  men  ;"  and  then,  when  they  shall  have  receiv- 
ed proper  instruction  (though  baptism  may  be  a  small 
matter  when  compared  with  the  other),  baptize  them, 
and  then  teach  them  all  things  necessary  for  their  future 
observance.     Baptism  is  a  very  small  part  of  the  duty 

14 


314  DEBATE    ON    THE 

of  a  minister,  it  is  true  ;  nevertheless,  it  is.  part  of  that 
duty,  and  he  has  no  right  to  neglect  it,  even  though  the 
weather  may  be  cold  ! 

The  gentleman  refers  to  1  Corinthians,  twelfth  chap- 
ter, 13th  verse  : 

"  For  by  one  spirit  are  we  all  baptized  into  one  body, 
whether  we  be  Jews  or  Gentiles,  whether  we  be  bond 
or  free  ;  and  have  been  all  made  to  drink  into  one  spirit. 
For  the  body  is  not  one  member,  but  many." 

The  apostle  is  arguing  the  unity  of  the  members  of 
the  body  of  Christ.  By  the  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
upon  the  heart,  we  are  buried,  as  it  were,  or  merged  in 
Jesus  Christ.  It  is  said  we  "  are  dead,  and  our  life  is 
hid  with  Christ  in  G-od."  By  what  agency  ?  By  the 
Spirit  which  operates  upon  the  heart,  crucifying  the 
body  of  sin,  and  bringing  us  into  union  with  Christ. 

"  For  ye  are  dead,  and  your  life  is  hid  with  Christ  in 
God.  When  Christ,  who  is  our  life,  shall  appear,  then 
shall  ye  also  appear  with  him  in  glory."  Here  the  spirit 
is  the  agent  by  which  this  is  done.  It  is  not  that  we 
are  baptized  into  the  spirit  :  but  by  the  spirit  we  are 
baptized  into  Christ. 

The  apostle  argues  the  same  to  the  Ephesians.  He 
says  :  "  There  is  one  body,  and  one  spirit,  even  as  ye 
are  called  in  one  hope  of  your  calling ;  one  Lord,  one 
faith,  one  baptism."  Here  he  brings  in  the  whole  in 
regular  order.  That  is,  we  must,  of  course,  exercise 
faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  "  One  Lord,  one  faith," 
and  then,  "  one  baptism."  By  faith  we  are  brought  into 
union  with  Jesus  Christ.  By  baptism  we  are  brought 
into  union  with  his  Church.  "One  God  and  Father  of 
all,  who  is  above  all,  and  through  all,  and  in  you  all." 


DESIGN    OF    BAPTISM.  315 

The  arguments  of  my  opponent  based  upon  these  ref- 
erences are  utterly  worthless  (in  thf  present  discussion), 
because  they  are  made  to  apply  to  a  subject  to  which 
they  were  not  designed  by  the  insph'ed  writers  to  have 
application.  He  has  wholly  misconceived  the  teach- 
ing of  this  portion  of  G-od's  word. 

Now,  consider  for  a  moment  the  beautiful  harmony  of 
the  gospel.  It  is  the  most  perfect  system  ever  present- 
ed to  man.  Take  any  part  from  it,  and  you  impair  its 
beauty,  its  order,  and  its  efficiency.  So  also,  if  you  add 
to  it.  Hence  Jesus  Christ  says  :  '*  If  any  man  shall 
add  unto  these  things,  God  shall  add  unto  him  the 
plagues  that  are  written  in  this  book  ;  and  if  any  man 
shall  take  away  -from  the  words  of  the  book  of  this 
prophecy,  Grod  shall  take  away  his  part  out  of  the  book 
of  life."  In  the  subjects  that  we  have  been  discussing 
before  you,  we  behold  the  action,  the  subjects,  and  the 
design  of  baptism  all  harmonizing  in  the  most  beauti- 
ful manner.  It  is  wonderful  that  Mr.  Coulling  seems 
so  astonished  that  I  bring  up  the  same  passages  of 
Scripture  to  explain  each  one  of  these  subjects.  A  cor- 
rect understanding  of  them  will  remove  his  astonish- 
ment. Paul  teaches  us  that  we  are  baptized,  because 
we  are  dead  to  sin.  To  explain  what  the  action  of  bap- 
tism is,  he  terms  it,  in  the  same  passage,  a  burial.  To 
explain  the  design  of  this  burial  he  says,  all  in  the  same 
passage,  we  are  buried  with  Christ  by  baptism,  that  we 
have  been  planted  in  the  likeness  of  his  death,  and 
that  we  shall  be  also  in  the  likeness  of  his  resurrection. 
Here  we  see  the  actio7i,  the  subject,  and  the  design,  in 
the  same  passage. 

A  child  knows  that  sprinkling  or  pouring  a  handful 


316  DEBATE    ON    THE 

of  dirt  upon  a  corpse  does  not  constitute  a  burial. 
Neither  does  sprinkling  or  pouring  a  few  drops  of  water 
upon  a  man  represent  a  burial. 

I  now  leave  those  who  have  heard,  and  those  who 
shall  read  what  I  have  said,  to  decide  whether  I  have 
sustained,  from  the  word  of  Grod,  the  proposition  I  affirm- 
ed upon  this  subject. 

[Time  expired.] 


MR.  COULLIXG'S  THIRD  REPLY. 

Mr.  CouLLiNG  :  My  good  brother  has  concluded  his  argu- 
ment upon  this  subject,  and  I  propose  in  the  time  now 
allowed  me,  to  attempt  to  review  those  points  of  it  that 
I  deem  necessary,  so  far  as  this  discussion  is  concerned. 
I  wish  to  say  this  much  :  that  if  any  individual  have 
differed  from  me  upon  this  subject,  I  have  no  sort  of 
objection  to  it. 

My  good  brother  proposed  this  proposition  to  me,  to  be 
discussed  with  him  :  that  baptism  was  designed  to  show 
the  faith  of  the  subject  in  the  deaths  burial^  and  resur- 
rection of  Jesus  Christ.  That  was  his  proposition.  I 
started  the  inquiry,  who  designed  it  ?  He  seemed  to 
think  that  that  was  a  marvellously  strange  question. 
And  yet  I  leave  it  to  you  to  decide  if  it  be  not  a  proper 
question.  He  did  not  say  who  designed  it,  I  think, 
though  he  subsequently  comes  out  and  affirms  that  God 
designed  it.  I  urged  several  objections  to  it,  growing 
out  of  a  criticism,  that,  in  my  humble  judgment,  was  a 
lawful  criticism  upon  the  verbiage  that  was  employed. 
And  I  certainly  think,  for  it  appeared  clear  to  my  mind, 
that  there  was  not  left  one  square  inch  of  ground  for  his 
hypothesis  to  stand  upon. 


DESIGN    OF    BAPTISM.  317 

He  has  noticed  one  or  two  issues  that  I  made  with 
him.  But  as  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  catch  what  he 
says,  he  has  not  actually  grappled  with  one  of  the  gravest 
difficulties  that  I  alleged  to  his  theory.  If  I  under- 
stood him,  his  entire  foundation  rests  upon  the  lexicog- 
raphers ;  and  I  am  willing  to  submit  to  you  how  firm  a 
foundation  he  stands  upon,  when  he  steps  upon  G-reek 
lexicons.  His  next  reliance  is  upon  a  set  of  men  whose 
universal  conduct  throughout  the  world  is  diametrically 
opposed  to  his  theory.  He  says  they  are  witnesses 
brought  here,  and  he  has  cross-examined  them.  I  did 
not  summon  them,  and  no  examination  in  chief  has 
been  had.  The  only  thing  upon  which  he  has  interro- 
gated these  men  is  their  views  in  reference  to  particular 
passages  of  scripture ;  and  they  have  given  out  their 
views  without  any  reference  whatever  to  this  or  any 
other  controversy.  That  is  the  simple  statement  of  the 
matter,  and,  probably,  if  you  were  to  meet  me  in  the 
road  to-morrow,  and  ask  me  to  define  some  term  in  the- 
ology, and  I  should  give  you  a  critical  definition  of  it? 
if  you  were  to  put  that  down  in  my  creed,  and  ask  me  to 
stand  to  it,  I  should  ask  to  be  excused,  for  the  words  I 
used  may  have  more  than  one  meaning. 

As  to  the  passages  that  have  been  quoted  from 
McKnight,  Clarke,  and  others,  he  says  that  I  could  not 
^'have  had  the  law  in  my  young  days."  Really,  I  do 
not  know  when  I  learned  what  Clarke  and  McKnight 
say.  I  was  a  little  surprised  he  did  not  bring  "Wesley's 
notes  with  him,  for  he  is  opposed  to  us  in  some  respects* 
"Why  ?  Because  these  men  lived  m  an  age  of  the  world 
when,  for  the  most  part,  immersion  was  the  constant 
practice  of  the  Church  of  England.     For,  according  to 


S18 


DEBATE    ON    THE 


one  of  his  own  witnesses,  Mr.  Stuart,  baptism  by  im- 
mersion was  practised  in  England  until  the  seventeenth 
century.  I  mark  that  to  cover  the  time  of  the  transla- 
tion of  King  James,  and  I  know  that  when  Wesley  was 
in  Greorgia,  he  refused-  to  baptize  a  little  child  there, 
because  he  said  the  child  was  not  sick  enough  to  justify 
it.  Now,  these  writers  from  whom  he  quotes,  and 
upon  whom  he  relies,  so  far  from  being  cross-examined 
by  him,  have  had  no  examination  in  chief.  They  hav^ 
given  out  a  few  utterances  without  any  sort  of  referenc 
to  this  subject,  and  I  have  no  sort  of  doubt  that  if  Adam 
Clarke,  Thomas  McKnight,  John  Wesley,  and  all  those 
men,  lived  at  this  day,  they  would  be  very  apt  to  give 
a  very  different  verdict  upon  that  subject. 

I  desire  to  notice  the  several  points  he  made  as  he 
went  along.  He  affirms  that  I  could  not  be  very  much 
accustomed  to  baptizing  people  by  immersion  ;  and  that 
I  had  fallen  into  the  very  common  error,  that  it  is  very 
hard  work  to  do  it.  It  is  true  I  have  baptized  only  a  few 
people  by  immersion ;  I  have  done  it  once  or  twice. 
And  here  let  me  explain  a  remark  that  I  made,  more  in 
pleasantry  than  otherwise,  for,  I  think,  I  am  incapable 
of  showing  any  disrespect  to  what  any  human  being, 
even  a  servant,  looks  upon  with  love  and  veneration.  I 
did  it,  I  say,  in  a  spirit  of  pleasantry ;  I  said  I  would 
baptize  people  if  it  were  not  cold  weather.  I  meant  to 
express  what  the  brother  has  expressed  so  repeatedly, 
that  baptism  is  a  secondary  matter.  And,  I  think,  being 
a  secondary  thing,  if  he  can  give  his  subjects  a  little 
time  in  which  to  get  ready — appoint  a  day  two  or  three 
weeks  hence,  when  they  shall  have  gotten  their  clothes 
ready,  and  fix  upon  a  convenient  place — if  he  can  do 


DESIGN    OF    BAPTISM.  319 

that,  I  certainly  should  be  excused,  if  in  cold  weather, 
when  I  think  my  health  would  be  endangered  by  it,  I 
should  put  it  off'  a  little  while.  I  have  a  brother  who  is 
a  Baptist  preacher,  and  some  time  ago  he  baptized  some 
persons,  and  went  home  and  went  to  bed  with  a  very 
severe  chill.  I  do  not  think  it  was  necessary  for  him  to 
do  it ;  and  there  is  no  doubt  that  going  into  the  water 
gave  him  that  chill.  And  I  think  it  would  do  the  same 
for  me,  for  I  have  not  as  much  faith  in  it  as  he  seems  to 
have,  not  I.  I  do  not  think  that  is  the  very  best  way  of 
doing  it.  And  not  thinking  so,  if  a  person  asks  me  to 
do  it,  I  will  tell  him,  when  it  is  perfectly  convenient  to 
me  and  to  him,  I  will  do  it,  and  I  will  do  it  with  pleas- 
ure. He  thinks  it  a  marvellously  wonderful  thing,  if 
God  makes  it  my  duty  to  immerse,  that  I  should  study 
any  personal  convenience.  And  then  he  goes  on  with 
an  eloquent  description  of  the  humility  of  the  Redeemer, 
and  contrasts  that  with  my  argument.  Does  he  pretend 
to  say  that  if  I  believed,  as  some  do,  that  a  man's  salva- 
tion depended  upon  it,  I  would  let  the  world  stop  me? 
No  ;  I  would  not  let  a  cannon  stop  me.  If  he  thinks  it 
is  right  and  his  duty,  and  his  subject  is  suffering  for  it, 
if  he  does  not  do  it,  then  break  the  ice  ;  yes,  if  it  be  as 
■thick  as  the  ice  of  the  North  Pole,  and  get  down  into  it. 
But  when  a  man  comes  to  me,  and  proposes  to  me  to 
administer  the  ordinance  to  him,  I  do  not  believe  I  am 
to  be  like  Pius  IX.,  and  say  to  him:  "  I  do  not  believe  in 
that  way  of  doing  the  thing — you  must  do  it  in  my  way.'' 
I  think  here  is  a  subject  upon  which  every  man  ought 
to  be  fully  persuaded  in  his  own  mind.  And  because  a 
man  differs  from  me  upon  that  subject,  T  do  not  say  to 
him,  "You  have  no  right  to  be  in  the  Church  of  Jesui 


320  DEBATE    ON    THE 

Christ."  When  I  do  say  that,  then  I  will  assume  the  posi- 
tion he  seems  to  think  I  ought  to  assume  upon  this  very 
point,  when  he  presents  it  to  me  as  a  truth  from  the 
word  of  G-od,  that  baptism  means  nothing  in  the  world 
but  immersion,  and  G-od  designed  that  I  should  perform 
it  in  that  way  and  in  that  manner  only.  When  he  con- 
vinces me  of  that,  I  will  do  it,  but  not  until  then.  And 
when  I  see  so  many  respectable  and  intelligent  people 
attending  upon  this  discussion,  and  see  men  of  intelli- 
gence, of  weight,  of  character,  and  of  great  piety,  dif- 
fering upon  this  subject,  I  do  not  feel  called  upon  to 
decide  ex  cathedra  upon  their  consciences.  That  is  my 
position. 

He  seemed  to  feel  the  force  of  the  quotation  I  made 
from  Corinthians,  where  Paul  said,  "  Christ  sent  me  not 
to  baptize,  but  to  preach  the  gospel."  And  he  went  to 
one  of  these  men,  who,  he  says,  is  a  great  man  some- 
where, to  get  him  to  fix  it  up  for  him.  There  was  a 
screw  loose  in  the  text,  and  he  got  a  man  who  had  a 
screw  loose  to  put  a  screw  in  it.  It  was  a  very  good 
way,  and  I  admired  his  ingenuity  very  much,  if  it  could 
have  saved  him  ;  but  I  do  not  think  it  did. 

He  speaks  of  the  beautiful  harmony  existing  in  the 
gospel,  between  what  he  calls  the  action  of  baptism,  the 
nature  of  baptism,  and  the  subjects  of  baptism.  The 
action  of  baptism,  iminersion ;  the  nature  of  baptism, 
to  represent  the  deaths  burial^  and  resurrection  of  Christ; 
the  subjects  of  baptism,  those  that  are  dead.  He  said 
that^  I  think :  those  that  are  dead.  And  then  wound 
up  by  the  exclamation,  that  I  wondered  what  became 
of  the  old  body.  Well,  he  happened  to  make  a  mistake- 
He  said  the  old  man  was  buried,  and  we  were  raised  up. 


DESIGN    OF    BAPTISM.  321 

The  difficulty  that  arose  in  my  mind  was,  that  the  thing 
that  was  buried  was  not  raised  up.  We  were  raised  up, 
but  the  old  man  was  buried.  It  was  simply  a  criticism 
I  made  upon  his  own  position.  The  truth  is,  I  think 
this  harmony  is  more  in  his  imagination  than  in  the 
word  of  Grod.  It  is  a  very  nice  harmony  for  his  notion 
of  things,  and  his  notions  of  things  harmonize  the  one 
with  the  other,  to  some  extent.  But  where  is  the  foun- 
dation for  it  in  the  word  of  Grod  ?  There  is  the  difficulty 
about  the  whole  subject.  If  I  began  where  he  does, 
and  went  on  with  him,  I  should  probably  come  out  at 
about  the  same  place  he  comes  out  at.  But  when  we 
start,  we  start  in  different  directions,  keep  in  different 
directions,  and  we  will  keep  on  going  different  directions, 
I  expect. 

The  children  of  Israel,  he  tells  us,  were  baptized  into 
Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea,  and  paraphrases  that 
by  saying  that  they  were  baptized  into  the  faith  of 
Moses ;  that  is,  when  they  went  into  the  Red  sea,  they 
thereby  manifested  their  faith  in  Moses.  Well,  that 
may  be ;  but  I  do  not  know  what  became  of  the  little 
children  that  went  along.  Did  they  exercise  faith,  too  ? 
But  unfortunately  for  him,  it  jars  the  harmony  of  his 
very  beautiful  system,  because  they  could  not  have  been 
baptized  by  immersion,  for  they  went  over  dry  shod, 
every  man  of  them,  and  it  could  not  have  been  an  im- 
mersion exactly.  So  the^'e  is  rather  a  jar  in  the  harmony 
of  his  system. 

Mr.  Massey  :  I  think  it  proper  to  explain,  that  the 
gentleman  must  certainly  have  understood  me  to  repre- 
sent it,  not  as  a  literal  baptism,  but  as  a  simple  meta- 
phor, drawn  from  the  idea  of  baptism. 

14# 


322  DEBATE    ON    THE 

Mr.  CouLLiNG :  No  doubt  about  that,  that  it  is  a  fig- 
urative baptism  ;  none  at  all ;  but  it  is  nevertheless  a 
baptism.  If  it  be  a  figurative  baptism,  it  would  fio[ure 
something ;  and  if  it  figures  a  good  baptism,  a  true 
baptism,  the  figure  must  be  something  like  a  real  bap- 
tism ;  and  therefore  the  real  baptism  cannot  be  immer- 
sion, unless  it  is  a  badly-drawn  figure.  And  if  the  fig- 
ure is  badly  drawn,  then,  of  course,  you  might  get  any 
mode  in  it.  And  if  it  be  a  properly-drawn  figure,  it  will 
be  like  the  original,  and  will  not  be  immersion. 

When  I  was  interrupted,  I  was  going  on  to  show  you 
what  1  regarded  the  Scriptures  to  teach  as  to  the  nature 
of  baptism.  That  instead  of  its  being  a  representation 
of  the  death,  burial,  and  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ, 
it  represented  no  such  thing.  And  going  through  the 
prophecies,  I  quoted  various  places  where  there  was  di- 
rect reference  made  to  it ;  first,  in  Joel,  where  it  is  said, 
<«  I  will  pour  out  my  spirit  upon  you."  And  I  told  you, 
that  when  we  came  to  notice  the  passages  in  the  New- 
Testament,  you  would  find  that  commented  upon,  and 
its  import  decided.  Now,  let  us  go  on  and  notice  some 
passages  in  the  New  Testament  Scriptures.  The  first 
will  be  in  Acts  x. — 

Mr.  Massey  :  Did  you  introduce  this  in  your  former 
address  ? 

Mr.  CouLTJNG :  I  did  not. 

Mr.  Massey  :  If  I  am  not  to  be  allowed  to  reply  to  it, 
I  must  object  to  your  introducing.  Your  remarks  have 
not  been  germain  to  the  subject  heretofore,  and  I  will 
leave  it  to  the  moderators,  if  you  can  introduce  this 
now. 

Mr.  CouLLiNG  :  I  will  leave  it  to  the  moderators^  if  I 


DESIGN    OF    BAPTISM.  323 

have  not  been  all  the  time  speaking  closely  to  this  view 
of  the  subject.  But  the  gentleman  is  right :  I  have  no 
right  to  add  these  passages  from  the  New  Testament. 

Mr.  Massey  :  I  am  willing  for  you  to  go  on  as  you 
choose.  But  I  do  not  wish  new  matter  introduced, 
when  I  cannot  reply  to  it. 

Mr.  CouLLiNG :  I  have  been  commenting  upon  your 
own  quotations  and  remarks.  But,  as  I  am  not  permit- 
ted to  prosecute  that  line  of  argument  any  farther,  I 
will  confine  myself  now  to  the  plain  and  simple  presen- 
tation of  the  points  that  I  have  made,  and  see  whether 
or  not  I  have  been  diverted  from  the  point.  His  posi- 
tion, I  repeat,  is  this  :  ^Hhat  baptism  is  intended  to  rep- 
resent the  faith  of  the  subject  in  the  deaths  burial,  and 
resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ^  I  have  stated,  in  oppo- 
sition to  that,  that  in  the  estimation  of  St.  Paul,  the 
design  of  baptism  could  not  have  been  to  represent  the 
death,  burial,  and  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ,  for  these 
reasons :  first,  that  the  death  of  Christ  was  represented 
by  authority,  by  the  Lord's  Supper  ;  secondly,  the  resur- 
rection of  Christ  was  represented,  and  is  still  represented, 
by  the  holy  Sabbath  day.  These  two  being  by  Divine 
authority,  St.  Paul  could  not,  without  giving  us  some 
notice,  have  introduced  another  commemorative  act  to 
cornmemorate  the  same  things  that  were  already  com- 
memorated. 

I  stated  another  difficulty  ;  that  it  was  a  novelty  in 
the  world's  history  to  commemorate  a  man's  burial.  I 
stated  another  difficulty  that  the  gentleman  has  not 
met — that  there  was  no  similarity  between  the  burial 
in  water  and  the  burial  of  the  Saviour.  And,  therefore, 
that  could  not  have  been  intended  as  a  representation, 


324 


DEBATE    UN    THE 


when  in  reality  there  was  no  representation  in  it.  I 
could  not  have  been  intended  to  figure  it,  when  in  reality 
there  was  no  correspondence  between  the  original  and  the 
figure.  I  think  these  objections  to  his  proposition  are 
ample,  and  are  unanswerable.  And  I  think  that  very 
many  of  you  are  fully  impressed  with  the  fact,  that 
they  are  unanswerable  objections  to  that  hypothesis. 

Another  difficulty  that  I  stated  to  this  view  of  the 
subject  was  that,  to  establish  a  commemorative  act,  and 
to  allege  that  that  was  established  by  Grod,  some  text 
of  Scripture  ought  to  have  been  adduced  to  prove  it. 
He  refers  to  Romans  as  the  text  to  enlighten  the  world 
as  to  the  meaning  of  baptism  ;  and  I  showed  you  that 
baptism  was  practised  twenty-five  years  before  this  light 
ever  shone  upon  the  world. 

Mr.  Massey  also  quoted  1  John  v.  8  : 

"  There  are  three  that  bear  witness  in  earth  :  the 
spirit,  the  water,  and  the  blood,  and  these  three  agree  in 
one."  The  spirit  bears  witness,  and  the  water  bears  wit- 
ness, and  the  blood  bears  witness.  But  then  there  is  an 
immense  chasm  here  to  be  filled  up.  Does  the  Scripture 
say  they  bear  witness  that  baptism  represents  the  death, 
burial,  and  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  ?  Does  the  text 
say  so  ?  I  admit  it  is  a  witness  ;  I  never  doubted  that 
in  my  life  ;  I  do  not  now  doubt  it.  But  I  very  seriously 
doubt  whether  it  is  a  witness  to  that  fact ;  and  certainly 
this  text  fails  at  the  very  point  where  the  subject  needs 
assistance  most.  So  that  I  say  again,  there  is  no  au- 
thority in  the  Word  of  God  for  that.  But  even  admit- 
ting that  that  was  authority,  there  is  this  difficulty, 
that  this  passage  was  written  even  later  than  the  Epis- 
tle to  the  Eomans ;  so  that  the  world,  instead  of  being 


DESIGN    OF    BAPTISM. 


325 


twenty-five  years  without  the  knowledge  of  its  meaning, 
was  nearly  sixty  years  without  that  knowledge.  So 
that  the  baptism  of  those  that  preceded  this  epistle 
was  a  meaningless  baptism  as  far  as  this  book  is  con- 
cerned, according  to  his  illustration  and  the  interpreta- 
tion of  the  matter.  Then  you  have  the  disciples  going 
about  for  twenty-five  years,  preaching  and  baptizing  the 
people,  without  the  import  and  meaning  that  Paul  reveals 
twenty-five  years  after  baptism  was  iDstituted.  So,  of 
course,  all  that  time  nobody  was  baptized,  whatever 
might  have  been  their  understanding  of  the  matter, 
with  this  view  of  it ;  for  they  certainly  could  not  have 
understood  this,  for  the  Bible  was  as  silent  as  the  grave 
for  twenty-five  years  as  to  what  baptism  meant.  But 
they  knew  what  they  did,  all  that  time,  when  they  took 
the  Lord's  Supper. 

Now,  I  wish  to  say  this  much  in  conclusion  :  we 
have  investigated  this  subject  to-day  ;  I  have  presented 
to  you  the  simple  difficulties  that  occurred  to  my  mind. 
If  any  of  you  think  that  I  have  not  stated  difficulties 
enough  to  show  you  that  there  are  errors  in  his  position, 
it  is  no  offence  to  me.  I  have  no  sort  of  objection  to 
your  thinking  so.  I  have  done  what  I  have  done  with  a 
full  and  firm  persuasion  that  I  was  right.  I  believed  it, 
and  I  believe  it  after  looking  at  the  subject  in  a  hundred 
different  aspects  ;  after  looking  at  the  opinions  of  some 
of  the  strongest  intellects  which  have  written  on  this 
subject,  and  I  am  perfectly  satisfied  to  leave  the  views  I 
have  expressed,  with  those  of  my  brother,  for  you  to  de- 
cide upon,  and  I  have  very  little  concern  how  you  de- 
cide it. 

[Close  of  the  third  day's  discussion.] 


326  DEBATE    ON    THE 


QUESTION  OF  OEDER. 


Fourth  Day's  Discussion. 

Friday,  July  13, 1860. 

Before  commencing  the  discussion  to-day,  Mr.  Massey 
requested  the  moderators  to  reconsider  their  decision  in 
calling  him  to  order  on  yesterday.  He  claimed  that  the 
call  had  been  improperly  made,  and  proposed  that  the 
moderators  would  request  the  reporter  to  read  from  his 
short-hand  notes  all  that  was  said  by  all  parties,  and  ex- 
pressed his  willingness  to  abide  by  the  report  as  then 
given. 

Mr.  Anderson  (moderator)  opposed  any  reconsidera- 
tion of  the  question.  Mr.  Woods  and  Mr.  Hansborough, 
the  other  moderators,  thought  justice  to  Mr.  Massey  re- 
quired them  to  reconsider  it.  Mr.  Anderson  then  proposed 
to  the  other  moderators  to  retire  for  consultation.  When 
they  returned,  Mr.  Massey  asked  the  result  of  their  de- 
liberations. Mr.  Anderson  rephed,  "  I  will  state  that  to 
the  audience.''''  Mr.  Anderson  then  said  to  the  audience, 
"  The  moderators  have  decided  the  question  submitted 
to  them  by  Mr.  Massey  in  this  way  :  the  moderators  de- 
cide that  Mr.  Coulling  was  out  of  order  in  his  remarks ; 
the  moderators  were  not  in  order  when  they  failed  to  call 
him  to  order,  and  Mr.  Massey  when  they  called  him  to 
order,  was  decidedly  out  of  order." 

Mr.  Massey  inquired  of  the  other  moderators  if  that 
was  a  correct  statement  of  their  decision.  They  replied 
it  was  not — that  they  had  decided  that  Mr.  Coulung  was 
first  out  of  order — that  the  moderators  neglected  their 
duty  when  they  failed  to  call  him  to  order,  and  were, 


DESIGN    OF    BAPTISM.  327 

therefore,  themselves  out  of  order,  and  that  he  (Mr. 
Massey)  was  out  of  order  in  his  reply  to  Mr.  Coulling. 

Mr.  Massey  proposed  to  explain  to  the  audience. 

Mr.  Anderson  objected  to  his  doing  so. 

Mr.  Massey  submitted  it  to  the  other  moderators. 
They  told  him  to  go  on  and  make  his  explanation. 

Mr.  Massey  requested  the  reporter  not  to  incorporate 
what  he  was  about  saying  in  his  report,  until  the  mod- 
erators should  endorse  it,  and  then  said  to  the  audience  : 
This  is  the  first  time  during  the  discussion  that  any 
speaker  has  been  called  to  order.  I  felt  aggrieved  at  being 
called  to  order  when  I  believed  that  I  was  legitimately 
replying  to  what  had  been  said  by  the  respondent.  I 
felt  that  injustice  had  been  done  me,  though  not  inten- 
tionally, and  appealed  to  the  moderators  to  examine  my 
language  as  taken  down  by  the  reporter,  and  to  recon- 
sider their  decision.  That  is  the  way  the  question  came 
up  this  morning.  Now,  Dr.  Anderson  says  that  I  was 
decidedly  out  of  order.  He  used  different  language 
when  he  spoke  of  Mr.  Coulling.  I  appeal  to  the  other 
moderators  to  know  if  he  has  correctly  stated  their  de- 
cision. I  wish  them  to  say  whether  they  did  not  place 
Mr.  Coulling  and  myself  on  equal  footing  in  the  matter  ? 

Mr.  Hansborough  :  That  was  our  decision  this  morn- 
ing. "We  did  not  decide  that  you  were  decidedly  out 
of  order. 

Mr.  Anderson  :  I  am  willing  that  the  word  decidedly 
shall  be  taken  out  of  the  statement  I  made.  I  announced 
that  Mr.  Coulling  was  out  of  order,  and  Mr.  Massey 
was  out  of  order,  too. 

Mr.  Massey  :  I  am  perfectly  willing  to  rest  the  mat- 
ter there.     I  want  nothing  but  simple  justice. 


328  RELATIVE    ORDER    OF 


RELATIVE  ORDER  OF  THE  LORD'S  SUPPER. 

MR.  COULLING'S  FIRST  ADDRESS. 

Mr.  CouLLiNG :  The  proposition  to  be  discussed  this 
morning  is,  "  The  scriptural  right  to  partake  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  is  not  restricted  to  those  who  have  ^received  a 
valid  Christian  baptism."  The  converse  of  this  proposi- 
tion is  in  these  words  :  "  None  but  those  who  have  re- 
ceived a  valid  Christian  baptism  have  a  Scriptural  right 
to  partake  of  the  Lord's  Supper." 

I  cannot  say,  because  I  do  not  perceive  it,  as  my 
brother  Massey  said  yesterday,  in  the  introduction  of 
his  debate  upon  the  question  then  to  be  discussed,  that 
this  is  one  of  the  most  important  questions  involved  in 
this  controversy.  I  doubt  not  but  there  are  considera- 
tions of  importance  attached  to  it.  But  it  is  manifestly 
chiefly  important  to  those  who  hold,  who  advocate  it. 
While  I  doubt  not  that  every  member  of  every  Church 
present  would  rejoice  in  their  hearts,  if  the  barrier  be- 
tween their  Christian  communion  with  immersionist 
Churches  were  broken  down,  yet  I  am  not  quite  sure 
that  the  success  or  the  prosperity  of  the  Presbyterian,  of 
the  Episcopalian,  or  of  the  Methodist  Church,  depends 
very  materially  upon  the  adjudication  of  this  question, 
settle  it  ia  your  minds  as  you  may.  "While  it  may  be  a 
source  of  regret,  it  probably  will  not  be  a  source  of  any 
very  serious  injury  to  those  who  may  differ  from  them. 
I  presume  that  my  good  brother  desires  me  to  give  him 
an  opportunity  to  justify  his  Church  in  the  course  that 
they  feel  themselves  allowed — and  in  some  sense,  shut 


329 


up — to  pursue.  And  I  am  here  to  show,  as  far  as  I 
may  be  able,  such  objections  to  the  course  that  they 
pursue,  as  wiU  give  him  an  opportunity  to  justify  that 
course  before  you. 

The  first  objection,  and  it  seems  to  me  that  it  lies 
on  the  surface,  is  this :  that  the  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  was  instituted  before  Christian  baptism  was  in- 
stituted. If  you  will  turn  to  the  Scriptures,  you  will 
find  two  or  three  passages  which  I  will  read  to  you.  In 
the  twenty-sixth  chapter  of  Matthew,  beginning  with 
the  twentieth  verse,  you  have  an  account  of  the  Last 
Supper  that  the  blessed  Redeemer  had  with  his  disci- 
ples : 

"  Now,  when  the  even  was  come,  he  sat  down  with 
the  twelve.  And  as  they  did  eat,  he  said,  Yerily  I  say 
unto  you,  that  one  of  you  shall  betray  me.  And  they 
were  exceeding  sorrowful,  and  began  every  one  of  them 
to  say  unto  him,  Lord,  is  it  I  ?  And  he  answered  and 
said.  He  that  dippeth  his  hand  with  me  into  the  dish, 
the  same  shall  betray  me.  The  Son  of  man  goeth,  as 
it  is  written  of  him  ;  but  wo  unto  that  man  by  whom 
the  Son  of  Man  is  betrayed :  it  had  been  good  for  that 
man  if  he  had  not  been  born.  Then  Judas,  which  be- 
trayed him,  answered  and  said.  Master,  is  it  I  ?  He 
said  unto  him.  Thou  hast  said.  And  as  they  were  eat- 
ing, Jesus  took  bread,  and  blessed  it,  and  brake  it,  and 
gave  it  to  the  disciples,  and  said.  Take,  eat,  this  is  my 
body.  And  he  took  the  cup,  and  gave  thanks,  and  gave 
it  to  them,  saying,  Drink  ye  all  of  it." 

This  is  the  establishment  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  the 
night  upon  which  the  Saviour  was  betrayed :  before, 
consequently,  he  was  crucified  ;  before  he  rose  from  the 


330  RELATIVE    ORDER    OF 

dead.  If  you  will  turn  to  the  twenty- eighth  chapter  of 
Matthew,  nineteenth  and  tw^entieth  verses,  you  will  find 
the  commission  to  baptize  : 

"  Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing 
them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of 
the  Holy  Ghost:  teaching  them  to  observe  all  things 
whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you,"  &;c. 

Now  I  hold  that  that  is  a  pretty  conclusive  argument 
upon  the  point  to  which  I  have  cited  it.  Here  is  the 
institution  of  the  Lord's  Supper :  here  is  the  great  com- 
mission. And  my  good  brother  told  you  here  the  other 
day,  that  this  commission  contains  our  warrant,  our  spe- 
cific warrant,  to  baptize.  I  think,  though,  he  has  fur- 
nished me  with  another  argument  upon  this  subject, 
that  he  himself  can  hardly  object  to,  and  the  correctness 
of  which  I  suppose  he  will  not  question.  In  the  first 
proposition,  he  affirmed  that  the  immersion  of  the  proper 
subject  in  water  is  the  only  apostolic  or  Christian  bap- 
tism.   • 

Mr.  Massey:  Allow  me  to  ask  the  brother  whether 
or  not  he  means  to  affirm,  that  upon  the  first  proposition 
I  was  the  affirmant.  I  know  he  changed  the  issue, 
and  placed  himself  upon  the  negative^  as  he  has  done 
to-day.  Does  he  claim,  as  his  language  imports,  that  I 
was  the  affirmant,  upon  the  first  proposition. 

Mr.  CouLLiNG :  No,  sir :  only  that  you  affirmed  that 
doctrine. 

Mr.  Massey  :  State  what  you  were  bound  to  prove, 
and  what  I  denied. 

Mr.  CouLLiNG :  That  is  his  doctrine,  and  he  will  not 
deny  it. 

Mr.  Massey  :  That  is  a  different  thing. 


THE  lord's  supper.  331 

Mr.  CouLLiNG :  He  has  asserted  that  again  and  again. 

Mr.  Massey  :  I  admit  that  is  my  doctrine ;  but  that 
was  not  the  issue  between  us. 

Mr.  Coulling:  That  is  enough  :  I  will  not  debate  any 
question  that  has  been  debated  already.  I  take  this, 
then,  as  a  matter  granted,  that  my  friend  admits  that 
the  only  valid  Christian  baptism  is  immersion  in  the 
name  of  the  holy  Trinity.  Now,  I  hold — I  say,  I  hold 
— that  the  baptism  of  the  disciples — even  admitting 
that  the  baptism  of  the  disciples  can  be  proved,  which  I 
do  not  admit ;  but  if  I  were  to  admit  the  baptism  of  the 
disciples  by  John  the  Baptist  to  be  proved,  it  would  not 
be  Christian  baptism.  "Why  ?  Could  John  have  bap- 
tized in  the  name  of  the  holy  Trinity,  when,  in  the  nine- 
teenth chapter  of  Acts,  you  find  that  there  were  some 
men  who  had  not  so  much  as  heard  whether  there  be 
any  Holy  Grhost ;  and  St.  Paul  commanded  them  to  be 
rebaptized. 

And  I  have  another  argument,  I  think,  drawn  from 
another  position  upon  which  the  gentleman  himself  is 
the  affirmant.  He  says — he  said  it  yesterday — that 
baptism  is  intended  to  represent  the  faith  of  the  subject 
in  the  death,  the  burial,  and  the  resurrection  of  Jesus 
Christ.  And  I  leave  it  to  you  to  say,  whether  those 
men  who  did  not  believe  that  Christ  had  risen  from  the 
dead,  when  he  had  risen,  could  ever  have  been  baptized 
into  that  faith  ?  Did  they  anticipate  it  ?  Did  not  the 
disciples  say.  This  was  he  who  we  had  hoped  would 
restore  the  sceptre  to  Israel  ?  Did  they  not  anticipate 
him  as  a  temporal  ruler,  to  restore  the  glory  of  Solomon's 
day  ?  And  were  not  all  their  hopes  prostrated  by  his 
unjust  condemnation  and  his  crucifixion  ?     Could  they 


332  RELATIVE    ORDER    OF 

have  been  baptized  in  the  faith  of  his  death,  burial,  and 
crucifixion?  And  if  not,  did  they  receive,  according  to 
my  friend's  definition,  a  valid  Christian  baptism  ?  Could 
it  have  been  possible  ? 

I  am  not  alone  in  the  opinion  I  entertain  upon  this 
subject.  And  as  my  good  brother  has  all  along  favored 
you  with  a  great  many  opinions  from  Pedobaptist  wri- 
ters, and  has  brought  forward  no  immersionist  authors, 
it  is  nothing  but  fair,  I  think,  that  both  sides  of  the 
question  should  be  heard.  And  that,  I  think,  is  proba- 
bly the  best  course  I  could  pursue,  to  refer  you  to  his 
own  brethren  ;  as  he  cannot  object  to  them.  They  are 
men  who  have  no  screw  loose,  as  he  thinks  Pedobaptists 
have.  We  bring  men  who  are  screwed  up  all  right,  and 
are  of  right  minds,  especially  upon  the  main  question. 
I  hold  in  my  hand  a  little  book,  of  which  I  will  read 
the  title  page : 

"  Open  Communion  ;  or.  The  principles  of  restricted 
Communion,  examined  and  proved  to  be  unscriptural 
and  false,  in  a  series  of  letters  to  a  friend.  By  S.  W. 
Whitney,  A.  M.,  late  pastor  of  the  Baptist  Church,  West- 
port,  N.  Y.  '  This  do  in  remembrance  of  me.  Drink  ye 
all  of  it.'  Second  edition.  Published  by  L.  M.  Lee, 
Richmond,  Ya.,  1854." 

I  want  to  read  you  from  the  70th  and  71st  pages  of 
this  book  : 

"  But  let  us  see  what  the  Saviour's  immediate  follow- 
ers thought  of  the  supposed  indispensableness  of  bap- 
tism to  a  place  at  the  sacramental  table.  Besides  the 
few  who  were  present  at  the  first  supper,  there  were,  in 
the  apostles'  days,  numbers  who  communed  steadfastly 
without  ever  having   made  a  baptismal  profession  of 


333 


Christianity.  They  were  those  who  had  embraced 
Christ  previous  to  the  day  of  Pentecost ;  all  who  were 
reckoned  as  members  of  the  Christian  Church,  when  the 
apostolic  commission  was  issued.  They  consisted  of 
'  about  five  hundred  brethren,'  at  least.  (1  Cor.  xv.  6.) 
These,  of  course,  '  had  not  received  Christian  baptism 
before  the  Saviour's  resurrection  ;  the  ordinance  not  then 
being  instituted.'  And  '  from  the  total  silence  of  Scrip- 
ture, and  from  other  circumstances  that  might  be  ad- 
duced, it  is  difficult  to  suppose  that  they  submitted  to 
that  rite  after  his  resurrection.'  " 

I  think  that  is  a  pretty  good  comment  upon  the  view 
I  have  just  now  expressed.  The  next  quotation  that  I 
shall  offer,  is  from  the  celebrated  Dr.  Hall :  "  The 
Works  of  the  Rev.  Robert  Hall,  M.  A."  This  is  pub- 
lished by  Harper  Bro's,  1857.  I  turn  to  the  first  vol- 
ume, pp.  303  and  304  : 

"  Before  I  dismiss  this  part  of  the  subject,  which  has 
perhaps  already  detained  the  reader  too  long,  I  must  beg 
leave  to  hazard  one  conjecture.  Since  it  is  manifest 
that  the  baptism  of  John  did  not  supersede  the  Chris- 
tian ordinance,  they  being  perfectly  distinct,  it  is  natu- 
ral to  inquire  who  baptized  the  apostles,  and  the  hun- 
dred and  twenty  disciples  assembled  with  them  at  the 
day  of  Pentecost.  My  deliberate  opinion  is,  that,  in 
the  Christian  sense  of  the  term,  they  were  not  baptized 
at  all.  From  the  total  silence  of  Scripture,  and  from 
other  circumstances  which  might  be  adduced,  it  is  diffi- 
cult to  suppose  they  submitted  to  that  rite  after  our 
Saviour's  resurrection  ;  and  previous  to  it,  it  has  been 
sufficiently  proved  that  it  was  not  in  force.  It  is  almost 
certain  that  some,  probably  most  of  them,  had   been 


334  RELATIVE    ORDER    OF 

baptized  by  John,  but  for  reasons  which  have  been 
aheady  amply  assigned,  this  will  not  account  for  their 
not  submitting  to  the  Christian  ordinance.  The  true 
account  seems  to  be,  that  the  precept  of  l)aptism  had  no 
retrospective  bearing ;  and  that,  consequently,  its  obli- 
gation extended  only  to  such  as  were  converted  to  Chris- 
tianity subsequently  to  the  time  of  its  promulgation. 
Such  as  had  professed  their  faith  in  Christ  from  the 
period  of  his  first  manifestation,  could  not,  without  pal- 
pable incongruity,  recommence  that  profession,  which 
would  have  been  to  cancel  and  annul  their  former  reli- 
gious pretensions.  With  what  propriety  could  the  apos- 
tles of  the  Lord,  ivho  had  continued  ivith  him  in  his 
temptations^  place  themselves  on  a  level  with  that  mul- 
titude which,  however  penitent  at  present,  had  recently 
demanded  his  blood  with  clamorous  importunity — not 
to  insist  that  they  had  already  received  the  baptism  of 
the  Holy  Grhost,  of  which  the  sacramental  use  of  water 
was  but  a  figure  ?  They  were  not  converted  to  the  Chris- 
tian religioh  subsequently  to  their  Lord's  resurrection, 
nor  did  the  avowal  of  their  attachment  to  the  Messiah 
commence  from  that  period  ;  and  therefore  they  were 
not  comprehended  under  the  baptismal  law,  which  was 
propounded  for  the  regulation  of  the  conduct  of  persons 
in  essentially  different  circumstances.  When  St.  Paul 
says,  *  As  many  of  us  as  were  baptized  into  Christ  have 
put  on  Christ,'  his  language  seems  to  intimate  that  there 
were  a  class  of  Christians  to  whom  this  argument  did 
not  apply. 

"  Having  proved,  I  trust,  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  can- 
did reader,  that  baptism,  considered  as  a  Christian  insti- 
tution, had  no  existence  during  the  personal  ministry  of 


THE  lord's  supper.  «•  335 

our  Saviour,  the  plea  of  our  opponents,  founded  on  the 
supposed  priority  of  that  ordinance  to  the  Lord's  sup- 
per, is  completely  overruled  ;  whatever  weight  it  might 
possess,  supposing  it  were  valid,  must  be  wholly  trans- 
ferred to  the  opposite  side,  and  it  must  be  acknowledg- 
ed, either  that  they  have  reasoned  inconclusively,  or 
have  produced  a  demonstration  in  our  favor.  It  now 
appears  that  the  original  communicants  at  the  Lord's 
table,  at  the  time  they  partook  of  it,  were,  with  respect 
to  Christian  baptism,  precisely  in  the  same  situation 
with  the  persons  they  exclude." 

Now,  these  two  passages  that  I  have  read,  one  from 
Whitney,  and  one  from  Hall,  very  clearly  go  to  establish, 
I  think,  the  correctness  of  the  views  that  I  have  ex- 
pressed. They  not  only  reiterate  them,  but  do  so  with 
a  force  of  argument,  with  an  expression  and  clearness, 
that  it  seems  to  me,  is  perfectly  unanswerable,  perfectly 
irresistible.  I  now  call  your  attention  to  another  quota- 
tion from  Dr.  Hall,  vol.  ii,  pages  218  and  219  : 

"  Thus  much  may  suffice  for  apostolic  precedent. 
There  is  still  one  more  view  of  the  subject  to  which  the 
attention  of  the  reader  is  requested  for  a  moment.  It 
remains  to  be  considered  whether  there  is  any  peculiar 
connection  between  the  two  ordinances  of  baptism  and 
the  Lord's  Supper,  either  in  the  nature  of  things  or  by 
divine  appointment,  as  to  render  it  improper  to  adminis- 
ter the  one  without  the  other.  That  there  is  no  natural 
connection  is  obvious.  They  were  instituted  at  different 
times  and  for  different  purposes  ;  baptism  is  a  mode  of 
professing  our  faith  in  the  blessed  Trinity  ;  the  Lord's 
Supper  as  a  commemoration  of  the  dying  love  of  the 
Redeemer ;   the  former  is  the  act  of  an  individual,  the 


336 


RELATIVE    ORDER    OF 


latter  of  a  society.  The  words  which  contain  our  war- 
rant for  the  celebration  of  the  Eucharist,  convey  no  allu- 
sion to  baptism  whatever  ;  those  which  prescribe  bap- 
tism, carry  no  anticipative  reference  to  the  Eucharist ; 
and  as  it  is  demonstrable  that  John's  baptism  was  a 
separate  institution  from  that  which  was  enacted  after 
our  Lord's  resurrection,  the  Lord's  Supper  is  evidently 
anterior  to  baptism,  and  the  original  communicants  con- 
sisted entirely  of  such  as  had  not  received  that  ordi- 
nance. To  all  appearance  the  rites  in  question  rest  on 
independent  grounds.  But,  perhaps,  there  is  a  special 
connection  between  the  two,  arising  from  divine  appoint- 
me7it.  If  this  be  the  case,  it  will  be  easy  to  point  it 
out.  Rarely,  if  ever,  are  they  mentioned  together,  and 
on  no  occasion  is  it  asserted,  or  insinuated,  that  the 
validity  of  the  Sacrament  depends  on  the  previous  ob- 
servation of  the  baptismal  ceremony.  That  there  was 
such  a  connection  between  circumcision  and  the  pass- 
over  we  have  from  the  explicit  declaration  of  Moses,  who 
asserts  that  "  no  uncircumoised  person  shall  eat  thereof." 
Let  a  similar  prohibition  be  produced  in  the  present  in- 
stance, and  the  controversy  is  at  an  end. 

The  late  excellent  Dr.  Fuller,  in  a  posthumous  pam- 
phlet on  this  subject,  labored  hard  to  prove  an  instituted 
connection  between  the  two  ordinances  ;  but  his  conclu- 
sion from  the  premises  is  so  feeble  and  precarious,  that 
we  strongly  suspect  his  own  mind  was  not  fully  made 
up  on  the  subject.  His  reasoning  is  certainly  very  little 
adapted  to  satisfy  an  impartial  inquirer.  The  whole 
performance  appears  more  like  an  experiment  of  what 
might  be  adduced  in  favor  of  a  prevailing  hypothesis, 
than  the  result  of  deep  and  deliberate  conviction. 


337 


On  this  point  our  opponents  are  at  variance  with  each 
other.  Mr  Kinghorn  roundly  asserts  that  baptism  has 
no  more  coimection  with  the  Lord's  Supper,  than  with 
every  other  part  of  Christianity.  Thus  what  Mr.  Ful- 
ler attempts  to  demonstrate  as  the  main  pillar  of  his 
cause,  Mr.  Kinghorn  abandons  without  scruple.  What 
a  fortunate  position  is  that  to  which  men  may  arrive 
who  proceed  in  the  most  opposite  directions — a  sort  of 
mental  antipodes,  which  you  will  reach  with  equal  cer- 
tainty whether  you  advance  by  the  east  or  by  the  west. 
From  the  title  of  Mr.  Kinghorn's  book,  which  is,  "  Bap- 
tism, a  Term  of  Communion,"  we  should  be  led  to  ex- 
pect that  it  was  his  principal  obieot  to  trace  some  specific 
relation  which  these  riojhts  bear  to  each  other.  No  such 
thing  ;  he  denies  there  is  any  such  relation ;  baptism, 
he  declares,  is  no  otherwise  connected  with  the  Lord's 
Supper,  than  it  is  with  every  other  part  of  Christianity 
But  on  his  hypothesis  it  is  essential  to  the  Eucharist, 
and,  consequently,  it  is  essential  to  every  part  of  Chris- 
tianity ;  so  that  the  omission  of  it,  from  whatever  cause 
is  such  an  error  in  the  first  concoction,  that  it  vitiates 
every  branch  of  religion,  disqualifies  for  all  its  duties, 
and  incurs  the  forfeiture  of  all  its  privileges.  This  is 
the  statement  of  a  man  who  makes  loud  professions  of 
attachment  to  our  Pedobaptist  brethren ;  nor  can  he  es- 
cape from  this  strange  dilemma  but  by  retracing  his 
steps,  and  taking  his  stand  with  Mr.  Fuller  on  a  sup- 
posed instituted  relation  between  the  two  ordinances. 
Meanwhile,  it  is  instructive  to  observe  in  what  labyrinths 
the  acutest  minds  are  entangled  which  desert  the  high 
road  of  common  sense  in  pursuit  of  fanciful  theories. 
Now  it  seems  to  me   that   the  passages  of  Scripture 

15 


S38  RELATIVE    ORDER    OF 

that  I  have  read,  from  the  comments  of  these  men  that 
I  have  read — cool,  deliberate,  thinking  men,  men  who 
agree  with  my  brother  on  the  main  point — their  opinions 
and  their  arguments  are  perfectly  conclusive  on  this  whole 
subject — I  cannot  for  my  life  see  how,  in  view  of  these 
facts,  any  one  can  sustain  the  opposite  ;  I  cannot  under- 
stand that. 

Another  difficulty  in  the  way  of  this  doctrine  is  this  : 
that  the  commission  is  silent  upon  this  subject ;  per- 
fectly silent.  My  good  brother  would  not  permit  me  to 
introduce  infant  baptism  into  the  commission,  because 
he  says  it  is  not  there.  Has  he  the  right  to  introduce 
close  communion  into  the  commission  ?  It  is  not  there. 
I  think  that  the  very  difficulty  that  he  tried  to  press  me 
"with  there,  presses  upon  him  quite  as  hard  here  ;  just  as 
hard  ;  and  he  will  find  it  just  about  as  difficult  a  matter 
to  get  close  communion  inside  of  the  narrow  confines 
of  that  commission,  that  he  fenced  around  and  fenced 
up  so  high  the  other  day,  and  then  threw  the  fences  all 
down,  as  he  thought  it  was  difficult  for  me  to  get  infants 
in  there.  I  now  want  you  to  hear  Mr.  Hall's  views  upon 
this  subject  again.  On  the  304th  and  305th  pages,  vol. 
].,  of  Dr.  Hall's  works,  we  have  this : 

"  The  commission  which  the  apostles  received  after 
our  Lord's  resurrection  was  in  the  following  words  :  '  All 
power  is  given  to  me  in  heaven  and  on  earth.  Go,  ye, 
therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost :  teaching  them  to  observe  whatsoever  I  have 
commanded  you.'  From  baptism  being  mentioned  ^jas^ 
after  teaching,  it  is  urged  that  it  ought  to  be  adminis- 
tered immediately  after  effectual  instruction  is  imparted 


339 


and  consequently  before  an  approach  to  the  Lord's  table. 
Whence  it  is  concluded,  that  to  communicate  with  such 
as  are  unbaptized  is  a  violation  of  divine  order. 

It  may  assist  the  reader  to  form  a  judgment  of  the 
force  of  this  argument  adduced  on  this  occasion,  if  we 
reduce  it  to  the  following  syllogism  : 

The  persons  who  are  to  be  taught  to  observe  all  things 
given  in  charge  to  the  apostle,  are  the  baptized  alone  ; 

But,  the  Lord's  Supper  is  one  of  these  things  ; 

Therefore,  the  ordinance  of  the  Lord's  Supper  ought 
to  be  enjoined  on  the  baptized  alone. 

Here,  it  is  obvious,  that  the  conclusion  rests  entirely 
upon  this  principle,  that  nothing'  which  the  apostles  were 
commissioned  to  enjoin  on  believers  is  to  be  recommended 
to  persons  not  baptized  ;  since  as  far  as  this  argument 
is  concerned,  the  observation  of  the  Lord's  Supper  is 
supposed  not  to  belong  to  them,  merely  because  it  forms 
a  part  of  these  precepts.  It  is  obvious,  if  the  reasoning 
of  our  opponents  be  valid,  it  militates  irresistibly  against 
the  inculcation  of  every  branch  of  Christian  duty,  on 
persons  who,  in  their  judgment,  have  not  partaken  of 
the  baptismal  sacrament  ;  it  excludes  them,  nor  merely 
from  the  Lord's  Supper,  but  from  every  species  of  in- 
struction appropriate  to  Christians  ;  nor  can  they  exhort 
Pedobaptists  to  walk  worthy  of  their  high  calling,  to 
adorn  their  Christian  profession,  to  cultivate  brotherly 
love,  or  to  the  performance  of  any  duty  resulting  from 
their  actual  relation  to  Christ,  without  a  palpable  viola- 
tion of  their  own  principles,  in  all  such  instances  they 
would  be  teaching  them  to  observe  injunctions  which 
Christ  gave  in  charge  to  the  apostles  for  the  regulation 
of  Christian  conduct,  while  they  deem   it  necessary  to 


340  RELATIVE    ORDER    OF 

repel  them  from  the  sacrament,  merely  on  account  of 
its  forming  a  part  of  those  injunctions.  Nor  can  they 
avoid  the  force  of  this  reasoning  by  objecting  that 
though  it  may  be  their  duty  to  enjoin  on  unbaptized 
believers  some  parts  of  the  mind  of  Christ  respecting 
the  conduct  of  his  mystical  members,  it  will  follow  that 
they  are  to  be  admitted  to  the  Lord's  table  ;  that  the 
meaning  is,  that  it  is  only  subsequently  to  baptism  that 
all  thing's  ought  to  be  enforced  on  the  consciences  of 
Christians.  For  if  he  once  admitted  that  the  clause  on 
which  so  much  stress  is  laid  is  not  to  be  interpreted 
so  as  absolutely  to  exclude  unbaptized  Christians  from 
the  whole  of  its  import,  to  what  purpose  is  it  alleged 
against  their  admission  to  the  Eucharist  ?  or  how  does 
it  appear  that  this  may  not  be  one  of  the  parts  in  which 
they  are  comprehended  ?" 

So,  you  see,  that,  upon  this  point,  too,  as  my  good 
brother  said  yesterday,  if  I  am  in  error,  I  am  in  error  in 
good  company,  and  with  his  brethren.  Another  diffi- 
culty that  will  occur  to  every  one,  is,  that  there  is  no 
scriptural  warrant  for  excluding  unbaptized  persons, 
even  from  the  Lord's  sacrament ;  no  scriptural  warrant 
for  it.  Now,  the  position  here  is,  that  none  but  those 
who  are  validly  baptized  have  a  scriptural  right — a  scrip- 
tural right.  I  affirm  that  there  is  no  scriptural  warrant 
for  that  position.  I  wish  to  give  you  the  views  of  Mr. 
Hall  again.  I  read  from  the  first  volume  of  his  works, 
page  306 : 

''  Whether,  in  such  circumstances,  the  attention  of  a 
candidate  for  Christian  communion  should  first  be  di- 
rected to  baptism,  is  not  the  question  at  issue  ;  but  what 
conduct  ought  to  be  maintained  toward  sincere  Chris- 


THE  lord's  supper.  341 

tians,  who,  after  previous  examination,  profess  their 
conviction  of  being  baptized  ah-eady,  or  who,  in  any 
manner  whatever,  are  withheld  by  motives  purely  con- 
scientious from  complying  with  what  we  conceive  to  be 
a  Christian  ordinance.  To  justify  the  exclusion  of  such 
from  the  Lord's  table,  it  is  not  sufficient  to  allege  the 
prescribed  order  of  the  institutions  ;  it  is  necessary  also 
to  evince  such  a  dependence  of  one  upon  the  other,  that 
a  neglect  of  the  first,  from  involuntary  mistake,  annuls 
the  second.  Let  this  dependence  be  once  clearly  pointed 
out,  and  we  give  up  the  cause.  It  has  been  asserted, 
indeed,  and  with  much  confidence,  that  we  have  the 
same  authority  for  confining  our  communion  to  baptized 
persons,  as  the  ancient  Jews  for  admitting  none  but 
such  as  have  been  circumcised  to  the  passover ;  a  simple 
recital,  however,  of  the  words  of  the  law,  with  respect 
to  that  ancient  rite,  will  be  sufficient  to  demonstrate  the 
contrary :  '  When  a  stranger  shall  sojourn  with  thee, 
and  will  keep  this  passover  to  the  Lord,  let  all  his  males 
be  circumcised,  and  then  let  him  come  and  keep  it,  and 
he  shall  be  as  one  born  in  the  land  ;  for  no  uncircum- 
cised  person  shall  eat  thereof.'  But  where,  let  me  ask, 
is  it  asserted  in  the  New  Testament  that  no  unbaptized 
person  shall  partake  of  the  Eucharist  ?  So  far  from  this, 
it  has  been,  I  trust,  satisfactorily  shown,  that  of  the 
original  communicants  at  its  first  institution,  not  one 
was  thus  qualified." 

Again,  lower  down  on  the  same  page : 

"  The  deoree  of  blame  which  attaches  to  the  conduct 
of  those  who  mistake  the  will  of  Christ  Vv^ith  respect  to 
the  sacramental  use  of  water,  we  shall  not  pretend  to 
determine ;  but  we  feel  no  hesitation  in  affirming,  that 


342  RELATIVE    ORDER    OF 

the  practice  of  comparing  it  to  a  presumptuous  violation 
and  contempt  of  divine  law,  is  equally  repugnant  to  the 
dictates  of  propriety  and  candor.  Among  the  innumer- 
able descendants  of  Abraham,  it  is  impossible  to  find 
one,  since  the  departure  from  Egypt,  who  has  doubted 
of  the  obligation  of  circumcision,  of  the  proper  subjects 
of  that  rite,  or  of  its  being  an  indispensable  prerequisite 
to  the  privileges  of  the  Mosaic  covenant.  Among  Chris- 
tians, on  the  contrary,  of  unexceptional  character  and 
exalted  piety,  it  cannot  be  denied  that  the  subject,  the 
mode,  and  the  perpetuity  of  baptism,  have  each  supplied 
occasion  for  controversy ;  which  can  only  be  ascribed  to 
the  minute  particularity  with  which  the  ceremonies  of 
the  law  were  enjoined,  combined  to  the  concise  brevity 
which  characterizes  the  history  of  evangelical  institutes. 
We  are  far,  however,  from  insinuating  a  doubt  on  the 
obligation  of  believers  to  submit  to  the  ordinance  of  bap- 
tism, or  of  its  being  exclusively  appropriated  to  such ; 
but  we  affirm,  that  in  no  part  of  Scripture  is  it  calcu- 
lated as  a  preparation  to  the  LorcVs  Supper,  and  that 
this  view  of  it  is  a  mere  fiction  of  the  imagination." 

Now  I  think,  that  from  these  passages  that  I  have 
just  quoted,  two  or  three  things  are  perfectly  apparent. 
And  I  am  right  glad  that  I  stand  in  company  with  such 
men  as  Robert  Hall,  remarkable  for  his  piety,  remark- 
able for  the  breadth  of  his  Christian  charity,  remarkable 
for  his  intellect,  remarkable  for  his  accurate  information. 
And  he,  with  perhaps  as  many  reasons  to  induce  him  to 
agree  with  those  who  differ  from  us  as  they  themselves 
have  for  their  course,  comes  deliberately  to  the  conclu- 
sion, that  whatever  else  may  teach  restricted  commu- 
nion, the  Bible  is  as  silent  as  the  grave  upon  that  sub- 


343 


ject,  and  that  the  commission  does  not  authorize  it.  In 
farther  evidence  of  this,  I  wish  to  call  your  attention 
again  to  this  little  book  of  Mr.  Whitney.  I  turn  now  to 
pages  43  and  44  : 

"  My  dear  friend :  We  are  now  to  examine  the  ground 
upon  which  you  profess  to  have  your  practice  of  restrict- 
ing the  Lord's  Supper  from  members  of  other  denomina- 
tions ;  namely,  the  position  that  Christian  baptism,  or, 
as  we  always  mean  by  this,  an  immersional  profession 
of  Christianity,  is  a  divinely-prescribed  term  of  commu- 
nion. If  this  were  so,  then  your  practice,  so  far  at  least 
as  restricting  the  Supper  from  the  unimmersed  is  con- 
cerned, would  not  merely  be  right  and  justifiable  ;  it 
could  not  lawfully  be  otherwise.  But  as  it  is,  I  regard 
it  as  the  paltriest  of  assumptions,  which,  if  stripped  of 
all  its  sophistry  and  of  the  authority  and  influence  of  a 
few  great  names,  would  shrink  in  shame  from  pub- 
licity." 

One  of  his  own  brethren :  that  is  his  idea  upon  the 
subject.  Again,  on  pages  90  and  91  of  this  little  book, 
I  wish  to  read  you  Mr.  Whitney's  views : 

''  Such  are  the  reasons  you  and  others  assign  for  re- 
garding baptism  as  a  divinely-prescribed  sine  qua  non 
for  communion.  But  a  man  of  your  good  sense  must  see 
that  really  none  of  them  support  the  idea,  while  several 
of  them  testify  directly  against  it.  The  position,  that 
the  want  of  baptism  is  a  divinely-recognized  barrier  to 
communion,  as  though  the  Lord's  table  belonged  to  none 
among  us  but  the  immersed,  is  one  that  cannot  be  sus- 
tained. The  best  attempts  to  defend  it  only  show  to 
what  weaknesses  Christian  men  are  liable.  For,  in  view 
of  the  utter  irrelevancv  and  the  suicidal  character  of 


344  RELATIVE    ORDER    OF 

these  attempts,  how  ridiculously  dogmatic  and  painfully 
destitute  of  truth  are  such  asseverations  as  these :  '  Chris- 
tian baptism  is  one  of  the  divinely-ordained  and  un- 
changeable terms  of  communion.' — (Howell  on  Com., 
p.  50. )  '  In  the  apostles'  days  it  was  constantly  required 
as  a  preparation  for  the  communion.' — [Ibid,  p.  45.) 
*  God's  regulations  forbid  the  unbaptized  [i.  e.,  the  Pedo- 
baptists]  to  partake  of  the  Supper.' — (R.  Fuller  on  Bapt. 
and  Com.,  p.  195.)  'He  orders  that  the  baptized  only 
shall  communicate ;  who  will  dare  to  abrogate  this 
order  V—(Ibid,  p.  198.)  That  is,  Grod  orders  that  Pedo- 
baptists,  that  all  professing  Christians  who  have  not 
made  their  profession  by  immersion,  shall  not  commem- 
orate their  Lord's  death !  If  this  is  not  teaching  for 
doctrines  the  commandments  of  men,  I  know  not  what 
is.  As  to  any  express  '  order'  to  restrict  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per to  '  the  baptized  only,'  I  challenge  all  Christendom 
to  produce  it.  As  Mr.  Kinghorn  says  :  '  The  New  Tes- 
tament does  not  prohibit  the  unbaptized  from  receiving 
the  Lord's  Supper.'  And,  what  is  more  than  this,  neither 
does  the  voice  of  the  Christian  Church,  nor  the  commis- 
sion, nor  the  practice  of  the  apostles,  nor  the  meaning 
of  the  ordinances,  nor  the  supposed  analogy  between  the 
terms  of  admission  to  the  passover  and  the  terms  cf  the 
communion,  afford  the  least  shadow  of  a  reason  for  in- 
ferrins:  that  such  a  restriction  is  consonant  with  the 
mind  of  Christ,  but  to  the  contrary." 

On  the  93d  page  he  goes  on  to  say : 

'•  Nay,  more,  I  consider  it  unworthy  of  any  intelli- 
gent man,  and  beneath  the  dignity  of  the  Christian  re- 
ligion, to  descend  at  any  time,  much  more  at  such  a 
time,  to  the  inquiry  how  a  disciple,  eminent  he  may  be 


THE  lord's  supper.  345 

for  high  piety  and  usefulness,  has  made  his  profession 
of  Christianity.  Such  a  course  ill  becomes  a  follower 
of  Christ." 

Stop  a  man  at  the  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's  table  and 
ask  him  how  he  made  his  profession  of  Christianity  ! 

Again,  according  to  Mr.  Massey's  own  hypothesis,  I 
think  a  very  serious  difficulty  is  in  the  way  of  making 
the  right  to  commune  depend  upon  our  baptism.  He 
says,  that  Christian  baptism  is  the  expression  of  the 
faith  of  the  person  in  the  death,  burial,  and  resurrection 
of  Jesus  Christ  as  the  procuring  cause  of  his  pardon 
and  salvation.  Now  just  let  us  look  at  this.  They 
will  not  baptize  a  man  until  he  believes  ;  and  then  when 
they  do  baptize  him  it  is  as  an  expression  of  his  faith  ;  in 
what  ?  In  the  burial  of  Christ,  is  it  not  ?  Now,  he 
will  make  him  express  his  faith  in  the  burial  before  he 
is  qualified  to  express  his  faith  in  his  death  ;  for  you  in 
the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper  commemorate  his 
death.  And  he  must  express  his  faith  in  his  burial  be- 
fore he  expresses  it  in  his  death.  And  that  is  not  the 
worst.  He  must  express  his  faith  in  his  resurrection 
before  he  does  in  his  death.  And  that  is  not  all ;  he 
must  be  qualified  to  express  his  faith  in  the  burial  of 
Christ  before  he  is  qualified  to  express  his  faith  in  the 
death  of  Christ.  For,  according  to  his  own  theory,  he 
is  qualified  to  express  his  faith  in  the  death  of  Christ  in 
one  ordinance,  and  is  not  qualified  to  do  so  in  another 
ordinance.  These  are  a  few  more  of  the  harmonies  we 
heard  of  last  evening.  Unfortunately,  I  am  one  of 
those  who  have  a  screw  loose  somewhere  and  cannot 
hear  these  harmonies.  I  am  seriously  told  that  I  am 
not  fit  to  commune,  because  I  am  not  baptized.     What 


346  RELATIVE    ORDER    OF 

do  you  mean  by  baptism  ?  It  is  an  expression  of  your 
faith  in  the  death  and  burial  of  Christ.  And  yet  I  am 
qualified  to  express  it  in  that  way,  and  not  in  the  other. 
That  is  his  own  view  of  the  subject ;  what  he  himself 
affirms.  And  when  he  brings  one  affirmation  and  puts 
it  alongside  another  affirmation,  if  there  is  harmony  be- 
tween the  two,  this  ear  has  lost  its  sense  of  hearing  ;  I 
hear  it  not ;  I  perceive  it  not ;  I  feel  it  not ;  I  believe 
it  not. 

Another  objection  to  it  is  this  :  that  in  assuming  the 
ground  that  none  but  those  who  agree  with  them  have 
a  right  to  partake  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  they  assume 
the  prerogative  of  sitting  in  judgment  upon  my  con- 
duct, upon  my  conscience,  and  exclude  me  from  a  privi- 
lege that  I  honestly  believe  I  have  as  much  right  to  as 
they  have.  Now,  I  do  not  wish  to  be  misunderstood 
right  there.  I  do  not  wish  you  to  understand  me  as 
saying  that  I  believe  that  this  brother,  or  members  of 
immersionist  churches  generally,  exclude  me  from  the 
Christian  Church.  I  do  not  believe  that.  I  believe  they 
recognize  me  as  a  Christian.  He  has  called  me  brother 
here  right  often.  He  did  express  a  faint  hope  that  per- 
adventure  the  clemency  of  Grod  would  take  my  excuses 
at  the  bar  of  Grod,  for  substituting  sprinkling  for  im- 
mersion. And  I  thank  him  for  that  much  charity. 
Neither  he  nor  his  brethren  deny  the  Christian  charac- 
ter of  Pedobaptists.  Let  me  give  you  a  little  authority 
upon  this  subject.  I  read  from  Dr.  Fuller's  work  on 
baptism.  The  work  is  entitled  "  Baptism  and  Commu- 
nion, by  Dr.  Fuller."  I  shall  read  from  the  179th  page, 
and  I  want  you  to  listen  to  this,  if  you  please.  I  ad- 
rnire  Dr.  Fuller's  character  in  a  great  many  particulars. 


347 


I  think,  from  all  that  I  have  heard  of  him,  that  he  is  a 
man  that  has  a  great  many  admirable  traits.  And  I 
think  you  will  agree  with  me  that  here  is  as  full  a  gush- 
ing forth  of  the  true  Christian  character,  as  you  often 
meet  with.     He  says  : 

"  The  Spiritual  '  body  of  Christ'  is  indeed  a  '  glori- 
ous body.'  This  is  the  Catholic  or  Universal  Church. 
To  this  belong  none  but  the  truly  regenerate  ;  they  are 
the  members  of  this  Society,  knit  together  by  a  union 
not  imaginary,  but  most  sweet,  and  dear,  and  imper- 
ishable. Against  this  Church  the  gates  of  hell  shall 
never  prevail.  We  rejoice  in  the  hope  that,  in  all  the 
visible  churches  of  different  denominations,  there  are 
those  who  are  united  with  us  in  this  spiritual  Church. 
We  delight  to  feel  ourselves  one  with  them  ;  one  in 
spirit,  one  in  aim,  one  in  '  a  good  hope  through  grace  ;' 
in  short,  one  in  Christ.  The  communion  of  this  body, 
however,  is  not  in  material  emblems,  as  bread  and  wine  ; 
it  is  spiritual  ;  it  is  the  fellowship  of  soul  with  soul ; 
nor  can  walls,  nor  mountains,  nor  oceans,  nor  ages,  sepa- 
rate those  w^ho  are  thus  cemented.  On  the  other  hand, 
where  this  union  does  not  exist,  vainly  do  we  speak  of 
spiritual  fellowship.  People  may  worship  in  the  same 
edifice,  and  sit  side  by  side  at  the  Lord's  table,  but  there 
is  a  world  between  them  ;  in  fact  they  belong  to  two 
difTerent  worlds." 

Now,  that  is  just  what  I  wanted  to  say  to  put  all 
that  right.  I  have  no  sort  of  doubt  that  Dr.  Fuller  ex- 
presses the  sentiments  of  a  large  majority  of  those  who 
differ  with  us  ;  they  believe  that  we  are  Christians.  I 
will  give  you  a  little  more  information  upon  that  sub- 
ject, from  Mr.  Whitney,  page  46 : 


348  RELATIVE    ORDER    OF 

*'  Says  one,  '  The  New  Testament  does  not  forbid  the 
unbaptized  from  receiving  the  Lord's  Supper.''  (King- 
horn,  as  quoted  by  Hall.)  Another  says,  '  Does  a  Pedo- 
baptist  honestly  believe,  after  an  impartial  examination 
of  the  best  evidences  to  which  he  can  gain  access  on  the 
subject,  that  he  has  received  Christian  baptism,  and  that 
he  has  truly  entered  the  congregation  of  Christ  in  the 
way  of  divine  appointment  ?  -Let  him  prosecute  the 
course  he  has  adopted.  All  the  Lord's  children  have  an 
undoubted  right  to  his  table,  because  whatever  is  his  is 
theirs.'  (Howell  on  Com.,  pages  99,  107.)  Says  a 
third — '  Undoubtedly  all  Christians,'  and  Pedobaptists 
among  them,  *  are  entitled,  in  the  strictest  sense  of  the 
term^  not  only  to  the  Lord's  supper,  but  to  all  the  privi- 
leges of  the  Christian  Church.  Sincerely  believing  they 
have  entered  the  visible  Church  in  the  way  of  divine 
appointment,  their  title  to  its  peculiar  privileges  inevita- 
bly follows,  since  every  Christian  is  under  a  sacred  obli- 
gation to  recognize  what  he  sincerely  believes  to  be  the 
divine  will.  Tliey  do  right  in  partaking  of,  the  Lord's 
supper,  though  in  our  opinion  unbaptized.'  (J.  Gr.  Ful- 
ler, on  Com.  Conversation,  iii.)  And  another,  more  re- 
cent still,  says,  '  There  is  no  reason  why  we  should 
breathe  a  murmur  against  them  because  they  take  the 
Lord's  supper,  in  their  own  churches.'  (Curtis  on  Com., 
page  190.)  Now,  with  what  sincerity  can  you  allow 
that  persons  whom  you  regard  as  destitute  of  Christian 
baptism,  are  entitled  to  the  Lord's  supper,  and  may  law- 
fully commune  among  themselves,  while  you  contend 
that  Christian  baptism  is  a  divinely  prescribed  qualifi- 
cation for  communion  ?  What  regard  for  G-od's  require- 
ments, or  jealousy  for  his  will,  is  there  in  such  a  course 


THE  lord's  supper.  349 

as  this  ?  It  seems  to  me  neither  more  nor  less  than  a 
downright  tampering  with  the  mind  of  God,  to  believe 
baptism  to  be  a  divinely  required  preliminary  to  com- 
munion, and  yet  allow  that  persons  do  right  to  com- 
mune without  it,  and  that  there  is  no  reason  why  we 
should  breathe  a  murmur  against  them  for  so  doing." 

Now,  recollect  all  that  is  not  my  language  ;  it  is  not 
the  language  of  Pedobaptists  ;  it  is  the  language  of  men 
who  are  thoroughly  immersionists  in  their  notions. 
That  is  their  view  of  this  subject.  Upon  this  subject  I 
have  a  little  more  that  I  wish  to  read  from  Hall's  work, 
vol.  ii.,  pages  226  and  227  : 

''  The  first  effects  necessarily  resulting  from  it,  is  a 
powerful  prejudice  against  the  party  which  adopts  it ; 
when  all  other  denominations  find  themselves  lying  under 
an  interdict,  and  treated  as  though  they  were  heathens 
or  publicans,  they  must  be  more  than  men  not  to  resent 
it ;  or  if  they  regard  it  with  a  considerable  degree  of 
apathy,  it  can  only  be  ascribed  to  that  contempt  which 
impotent  violence  is  so  apt  to  inspire.  We  are  incompe- 
tent judges  of  the  light  in  which  our  conduct  appears  to 
those  against  whom  it  is  directed,  but  the  more  fre- 
quently we  place  ourselves  in  their  situation  the  less  will 
be  our  surprise  at  the  indications  of  alienation  and  dis- 
gust which  they  may  evince.  The  very  appellation  of 
Baptist,  together  with  the  tenets  by  which  it  is  desig- 
nated, become  associated  with  the  idea  of  bigotry  ;  nor 
will  it  permit  the  mind  which  entertains  that  prejudice 
to  give  an  impartial  attention  to  the  evidence  by  which 
our  sentiments  are  supported.  With  mingled  surprise 
and  indignation  they  behold  us  making  pretensions 
which   no  other    denomination   of   Protestants  assume, 


850  RELATIVE    ORDER    OF 

placing  ourselves  in  an  attitude  of  hostility  toward  the 
whole  Christian  world,  and  virtually  claiming  to  be  the 
only  Church  of  Christ  upon  earth.  Fortified  as  it  is  by 
claims  to  antiquity  and  universality,  and  combining  in 
its  exterior  whatever  is  adapted  to  dazzle  the  imagina- 
tion and  captivate  the  senses,  there  is  yet  nothing  in  the 
Church  of  Rome  that  has  excited  more  indignation  and 
disgust  than  this  very  pretension.  What,  then,  must 
be  the  sensation  produced,  when,  in  the  absence  of  all 
these  advantages,  a  sect  comparatively  small  and  insig- 
nificant, erects  itself  on  a  solitary  eminence,  whence 
it  repels  the  approach  of  all  other  Christians  ?" 

That  is  Mr.  Hall's  view  of  the  subject.  I  wish  just 
here  to  say  that  I  am  not  to  be  understood  as  applying 
all  these  sentiments  to  the  immersionists,  or  to  the  re- 
stricted communionists.  I  honestly  believe,  as  I  believe 
that  I  stand  here,  that  there  are  men  who  advocate  this 
doctrine  just  as  honestly  as  I  oppose  it.  They  take  not 
this  view  of  the  subject ;  they  view  not  this  subject  in 
this  light.  And  I  have  taken  advantage  of  this  occasion 
to  bring  these  views  before  them,  because  these  are  the 
natural,  these  are  the  most  palpable  views  that  can  be 
taken  of  it.  And  1  will  venture  the  assertion  that  about 
nine  out  of  ten  men,  unsophisticated,  unprejudiced  men, 
would  adopt  and  advance  identically  these  very  senti- 
ments. 

Another  difficulty  in  the  way  of  this  theory  is  that 
the  principle  itself,  upon  w^hich  close  communionists  act, 
is  not  strictly  carried  out.  Well,  I  say  this,  and  I  sug- 
gest it,  so  that  my  good  brother  may  put  you  right  upon 
this  point,  if  I  am  misinformed.  I  do  not  pretend  to 
know,  I  will  give  him  my  authority  for  saying  so,  and 


THE  lord's  supper.  351 

it  may  go  for  what  it  is  worth.  I  turn  now  again  to 
"Whitney,  pages  108  and  109,  where  1  find  this  : 

"  But,  if  the  Lord's  Supper  be  really  a  devotional 
ordinance,  as  you  would  have  it,  why  all  this  ado  that 
you  make  about  baptism  as  being  a  term  of  commu- 
nion ?  where  is  the  force  of  it,  when  a  believer's  quali- 
fiedness  turns  not  on  the  question,  *  Has  he  been  bap- 
tized V  nor  on  the  question,  '  Is  he  a  member  of  some 
sister  Church  of  like  faith  and  order  ?'  The  practice 
that  restricts  the  Lord's  Supper  from  any  baptized  be- 
liever of  irreproachable  life,  is  an  open  abandonment  of 
the  ground  on  which  you  and  all  restricted  communion- 
ists  professed  to  act.  Dr.  Howell,  for  example,  the  great 
American  champion,  lays  it  down  in  language  that  ad- 
mits of  no  ambiguity,  that  *  repentance  toward  God, 
faith  in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  baptism  in  the  name 
of  the  Holy  Trinity,  are  incontrovertibly  the  terms  of 
the  communion,  appointed  and  established  by  the  King 
in  Zion,  and  from  which  we  are  forbidden,  by  the  most 
sacred  obligations,  at  any  time,  for  any  purpose,  or 

UNDER  ANY  CIRCUMSTANCE,  TO  DEPART,  '  what  thing  SOCVer 

I  command  you,'  saith  the  Lord  Jehovah,  '  observe  to 
do  it.'  Thou  shalt  not  add  thereto,  nor  diminish  from 
it.'  "  Again  :  "  '  Repentance  toward  G-od,  faith  in  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  baptism  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  are  in- 
dispensable terms  of  approach  to  the  Lord's  table,  and 

to  which  those  who  have  OBSERVED  THESE  PRELIMINARIES 
CANNOT  AFTERWARD  BE  DEBARRED  OF  ACCESS,  BUT  IN  CON- 
SEQUENCE OF  A  FORFEITURE    OF     CHRISTIAN    CHARACTER    BY 

IMMORALITY  OR  HERESY.'  This  is  language  which  strikes 
a  death-blow  at  the  restriction  you  practise ;  and  re- 


352  RELATIVE    ORDER    OF 

member  that  it  is  not  merely  the  language  of  Dr. 
Howell,  but  of  the  American  Baptist  Publication  Society, 
by  whom  the  work  is  endorsed  and  issued.  And  yet, 
neither  is  Dr.  Howell,  nor  are  the  members  of  the  Pub- 
lication Society,  nor  are  our  brethren  generally,  regulated 
in  their  practice  by  this  rule,  any  more  than  you,  your- 
self are.  The  restricted  communion  of  Baptist  Churches^ 
the  United  States  over^  makes  neither  more  nor  less  than 
membership  in  churches  of  like  faith  and  order,  the 
qualification  for  communion  with  them.  Apologize  for 
it,  and  seek  to  vindicate  it  as  much  as  you  may,  still 
the  fact  remains  the  same,  and  it  cannot  be  denied  that 
this  is  what  is  really  made  the  one  and  all-embracing 
pre-requisite  for  a  seat  at  the  Lord's  table,  by  the  '  regu- 
lar Baptists  in  this  country.'  Such  being  the  case,  to 
what  purpose,  I  say,  is  all  this  verbiage  about  '  repent- 
ance, faith,  and  baptism,  being  the  divinely-ordained  and 
unchangeable  terms  of  communion,'  as  Dr.  Howell  ex- 
presses it?  Why  not  at  once  deny  the  Sacramental 
Table  to  be  the  Lord's,  and  honestly  and  avowedly  con- 
tend for  its  being  a  denominational  table  ?  If  it  be 
true,  as  the  practice  of  restricted  communion  from  one 
end  of  the  land  to  the  other  says,  that  the  qualification 
for  communion  is  not  repentance,  faith,  and  baptism 
merely,  but  simply  a  place  in  the  Baptist  denomination, 
then  let  us  hear  no  more  about  not  communing  with 
others,  on  the  ground  of  their  not  being  baptized.  For 
the  truth's  sake  let  us  have  consistency  and  honesty. 
Let  it  be  frankly  and  fearlessly  asserted  that  the  com- 
munion table  is  not  the  Lord's,  nor  for  his  people,  but  a 
denominational  table  for  those  only  who  are  of  our  de- 
nomination.    If  the  system  is  justifiable  there  is  noth- 


353 


ing  to  gain  by  urging  false  pleas  in  its  iDehalf.  and  cloak- 
ing its  deformities  under  falsehoods,  nor  anything  to  be 
feared  by  placing  it  on  its  true  basis,  and  attempting  to 
defend  it  as  it  is.  Should  it  fall  \Yhen  placed  there,  and 
left  to  stand  without  the  fictitious  props  which  now  sup- 
port it,  let  it  fall.  It  is  unworthy  to  stand,  and  the 
sooner  it  falls  the  better,  as  well  for  those  who  practise 
it  as  for  the  Church  at  large,  and  for  the  general  ad- 
vancement among  men  of  the  pure  and  ennobling  prin- 
ciples of  the  gospel  of  the  Son  of  God." 

Now,  I  cannot  say  that  that  is  or  is  not  a  true  repre- 
sentation of  their  course.  But  I  do  say  that  if  it  be,  it 
is  placing  themselves  in  an  attitude  of  hostility  to  other 
denominations  of  Christians,  and  other  people,  whom 
they  admit  to  be  good,  whom  they  admit  to  be  intelli- 
gent, whom  they  admit  to  be  honest,  whom  they  admit 
to  be  as  capable  of  arriving  at  the  truth  with  as  many 
motives  to  arrive  at  the  truth,  as  they  themselves  are. 
Now,  if  there  were  no  other  reason  whatever,  I  should 
object  to  close  communion  for  that  very  reason,  that  I 
should  thereby  undertake  to  sit  in  judgment  and  decide 
upon  the  moral  qualifications  of  my  fellow -man  ;  that  I 
thereby  say  to  him,  "  You  are  either  too  ignorant  to  find 
out  your  duty,  or  you  are  not  honest  enough  to  find  it 
out ;  you  are  wrong,  and  so  wrong  that  I  cannot  and 
dare  not  countenance  your  error."  Who  calls  upon  you 
to  do  it,  my  friend  ?  What  makes  it  your  duty  to  do  it  ? 
By  what  authority  do  you  thus  arraign  yourself  against 
your  brother  ?  Some  may  affirm,  in  opposition  to  this, 
that  the  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper  is  intended  for 
each  denomination  of  Christians  ;  that  as  a  Pedobaptist 
Church,  we  have   our  sacrament ;  as  an  immersionist 


354  RELATIVE    ORDER    OF 

Church  you  have  your  sacrament ;    and  Ihat  your  sacra- 
ment may  be  hmited  or  confined,  just  as  you  choose. 


MR.  M ASSET'S  FIRST  REPLY. 

Mr.  Massey: — Messrs.  Moderators,  Ladies,  and  Gten- 
TLEMEN  :  I  need  scarcely  inform  you  that  the  gentleman 
who  has  just  addressed  you,  has  a  much  more  happy  facil- 
ity for  making  objections  than  he  has  for  making  an  ar- 
gument. If  I  understood  him  correctly,  he  (in  his  very 
outset)  spoke  of  himself  as  being  here  to  give  me  an 
opportunity  of  advocating  the  doctrines  of  my  Church, 
and  says  that  he  is  here  to  present  objections  to  our 
views  of  the  administration  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  But 
for  the  simple  fact  that  he  addressed  you  first,  you  never 
would  have  conceived  that  he  was  the  affirmant  upon 
this  proposition.  The  proposition  before  you,  of  his  oion 
selection^  is  this :  "  The  scriptural  riglit  to  partake  of 
the  Lord's  Supper  is  not  restricted  to  those  who  have 
received  Christian  baptism.'^  To  sustain  this  proposition, 
we  had  the  right  to  expect  that  he  would  endeavor  to 
show  that  there  is  authority  in  the  word  of  God  for 
administering  the  Lord's  Supper  to  those  who  had  not 
received  Christian  baptism.  This  you  would  have  recog- 
nised as  the  proper  course  for  him  to  establish  his  nega- 
tive proposition.  I  am  here  to  deny  the  proposition  he 
affirms:  to  deny  that  the  scriptural  right  to  partake  of 
the  Lord's  Supper  is  not  restricted  to  those  who  have 
received  Christian  baptism. 

And  I  want  you  to  bear  in  mind  another  fact :  the 
gentleman  has  spent  a  large  portion  of  his  time  in  draw- 


THE  lord's  supper/  355 

ing  distinctions  between  John's  baptism  and  Christiaij 
baptism,  and  has  evaded  the  true  issue  between  him  and 
myself.  If  he  has  not  designedly^  he  has  at  least  clearly, 
I  think,  left  the  impression  upon  the  great  majority  of 
this  congregation,  that  the  issue  between  us  is,  not 
whether  baptism  according  to  his  view  of  it,  but  accord- 
ing to  my  view  of  it,  is  a  prerequisite  to  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per. Bear  in  mind,  that  in  his  proposition  he  takes  the 
broad  ground  that  no  baptism  ivhatever  is  a  prerequisite. 
I  am  not  raising  the  question  now  whether  sprinkling, 
pouring,  or  immersion,  is  baptism :  that  question  has  been 
discussed.  One  proposition  at  a  time.  The  question 
now  is,  whether  baptism,  according  either  to  my  views 
or  the  views  of  Pedobaptists,  is  a  prerequisite  to  the 
Lord's  Supper  :  whether  any  act  recognized  by  Christian 
men  as  baptism,  is  to  be  performed  before  there  arises 
the  right  to  receive  the  Lord's  Supper.  That  is  the 
question  before  us  at  this  time. 

Mr.  CouUing  has  said  a  great  deal  about  charity :  he 
seems  to  be  very  fluent  when  talking  about  it.  I  greatly 
prefer  that  charity  which  proves  itself  by  deed,  to  that 
which  consists  only  in  ivord.  He  seems  very  much  dis- 
posed to  dodge  the  issue  between  us.  He  knows  that 
he  has  placed  himself  in  opposition  to  all  Pedobaptist 
Churches;  that  he  stands  here  arrayed,  upon  that  prop- 
osition, against  Episcopahans,  Presbyterians,  and  the 
standards  of  his  oiun  Church.  There  is  no  difference 
between  Episcopalians,  Presbyterians,  and  myself,  with 
regard  to  this  question.  We  all  agree  that  baptism  is  a 
prerequisite  to  the  Loi'd's  Supper.  We  differ  as  to  ivhat 
baptism  is ;  but  yet  we  agree  perfectly  that  that  rite, 
which  we  severally  recognize  as  baptism,  must  be  re- 


356  RELATIVE    ORDER    OF 

oeived  before  the  right  to  the  Lord's  Supper  is  possessed. 
Now,  bear  this  in  mind,  and  you  will  be  prepared  to 
judge  of  the  gentleman's  argument,  and  to  understand 
his  effort  to  evade  the  real  issue. 

I  shall  not  attempt  to  discuss  the  question,  whether 
John's  baptism  and  Christian  baptism  are  one  and  the 
same  thing.  That  has  nothing  to  do  with  my  present 
purpose.  It  is  by  no  means  important  to  the  discussion 
of  the  subject  before  us.  I  might  ask  the  gentleman, 
in  the  language  of  Jesus  Christ  himself,  "  The  baptism 
of  John,  whence  was  it  ?  From  heaven,  or  of  men  ?" 
And  I  leave  him  just  where  Christ  left  his  predecessors, 
who  found  they  would  be  in  a  dilemma,  answer  that 
question  whichever  way  they  would.  I  scarcely  need 
tell  you  that  Mark  gives  the  baptism  of  John  as  the 
beginning  of  the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ ;  that  Jesus 
Christ  declared  that  "  the  law  and  prophets  were  until 
John,  but  since  then  the  gospel  is  preached  unto  you." 
I  need  not  present  you  so  many  assurances  of  what  Jesus 
Christ  and  his  disciples  recognized  John's  baptism  to  be. 
I  care  not  what  it  is,  so  far  as  this  question  is  concerned. 
If  he  argues  that  baptism  administered  prior  to  the  cru- 
cifixion and  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  v/as  but  a  pre- 
paratory act,  and  was  not,  therefore,  Christian  baptism, 
by  the  same  mode  of  reasoning  I  can  show  you  that  the 
observance  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  prior  to  the  crucifixion 
of  Jesus  Christ,  was  a  preparatory  act,  instructing  his 
disciples  how  they  were  to  receive  and  administer  it 
after  they  should  be  organized  into  Christian  Churches. 
Whatever  he  says  upon  that  point  of  one  ordinance,  may 
be  said  of  both,  and  hence  the  whole  of  his  argument 
may  be  laid  aside.  Whatever  he  does  with  the  one^  he 
does  also  with  the  othei'. 


THE  lord's  supper.  357 

The  gentleman  has  introduced  what  he  terms  an  array 
of  the  testimony  from  Baptist  authorities.  Now,  there 
is  not  a  man,  I  suppose,  who  is  at  all  conversant  with 
religious  literature,  who  is  not  aware  of  the  fact  that 
there  are  two  distinct  branches  of  the  Baptist  Church, 
the  one  recognized  as  open  communionists,  and  the  other 
as  restricted  communionists.  And  that  whatever  is  said 
by  the  one  upon  that  subject  is  by  no  means  recognized 
as  authority  with  the  other.  I  might  just  as  well  blend 
Protestant  Methodists  with  Episcopal  Methodists,  and,  in 
arguing  against  episcopacy,  read  what  Protestant  Meth- 
odists urge  against  three  orders  in  the  ministry,  and  say, 
''  Here  is  your  oivn  authority  against  you."  Mr.  Coul- 
ling  w^ould  say,  "  That  is  a  different  Church:  we  do  not 
recognize  that  as  our  Church."  Robert  Hall  was  a  great 
and  good  man.  All  felt  themselves  honored  in  honoring 
him,  because  of  his  greatness  and  goodness  ;  yet,  what 
Robert  Hall  says  upon  this  subject  is  no  authority  with 
us.  The  gentleman  may  adopt  it  as  argument,  if  he 
be  short  of  argument  of  his  own,  and  wants  some  one 
else  to  farnish  it  for  him.  But  the  idea  of  its  being  evi- 
dence, brought  from  Baptist  ranks  against  Baptists,  has 
not  the  weight  of  a  feather.  And  then  he  brought  for- 
ward Whitne}^,  who  occupies  a  still  worse  position.  Is 
this  Baptist  authority  ?  The  brother  talked  yesterday, 
and  before,  about  my  holding  him  responsible  for  lohat- 
ever  lu as  published  by  the  Methodist  General  Conference. 
He  would,  doubtless,  have  thought  it  77iore  strange  if  I 
had  held  him  responsible  for  what  was  published  by  a 
Baptist  General  Association,  or  by  Baptist  authority- 
Where  did  this  book  of  "Whitney's  come  from  ?  '''•Pub- 
lished by  L.  M.  Lee  of  Richmond.''''       Did  any  of  you 


358  RELATIVE    ORDER    OF 

ever  hear  of  Dr.  L^roy  M.  Lee  f  Who  is  he  ?  Is  he  the 
Secretary  of  the  Baptist  Publication  Society,  editing  the 
ivorks  published  by  Baptists  ?  Dr.  Leroy  M.  Lee  once  stood 
as  the  great  Ajax  of  3Iethodism — editor  of  the  "  Rich- 
mond Ciiristian  Advocate."  Some  of  you  will  remember 
that  he  was  badly  used  up  in  a  controversy  between  him- 
self and  Dr.  Howell,  upon  the  subject  of  Infant  Baptism ; 
and  that  a  lady  then  took  him  in  hand  and  scored  him 
most  beautifully .  He  had  the  sad  misfortune  to  be  worsted 
in  a  controversy  hy  a.  woman,  and  retired  from  the  editorial 
chair  soon  after.  I  do  not  say  this  caused  him  to  retire. 
There  may  have  been  some  other  cause  for  it.  This  is 
the  "  Baptist  auihority^^  that  the  gentleman  has  intro- 
duced. Now  let  us  examine  it.  He  says  this  man 
refers  to  Howell.  Let  us  see  hoiv  he  refers  to  him.  He 
says  that  Howell  says  : 

"  Does  a  Pedobaptist  honestly  believe,  after  an  impar- 
tial examination  of  the  best  evidences  to  which  he  can 
gain  access  on  the  subject,  that  he  has  received  Christian 
baptism,  and  that  he  has  truly  entered  the  congregation 
of  Christ,  in  the  way  of  divine  appointment  ?  Let  him 
prosecute  the  course  he  has  adopted.  All  the  Lord's 
children  have  an  undoubted  right  to  his  table,  because 
whatever  is  his  is  theirs." 

And  then  the  brother,  as  he  says  I  call  him,  and  I'll 
still  call  him  so,  he  is  too  charitable  to  object  to  it — the 
brother  became  exceedingly  eloquent  in  his  wondering 
astonishment  that  Dr.  Howell  could  advocate  such  senti- 
ments as  these,  and  then  practise  so  differently.  He  was 
utterly  astonished  that  a  man  should  advocate  such  sen- 
timents, and  practise  so  inconsistently  with  ihem.  A  few 
days  ago  he   turned    to   my    "  tomes   of  books,"   as  he 


THE  lord's  supper.  359 

termed  them,  and  asked,  "  What  importance  is  to  be  at- 
tached to  the  authority  of  these  men,  who  say  one  thing 
and  act  another  ?"  He^  by  his  own  showing,  sets  his 
authority  all  aside.  If  Dr.  Howell  does  teach  one  thing 
and  practise  another,  he  is  an  inconsistent  man,  just  as 
Mr.  CouLLiNG  charges  that  these  Pedobaptists  are  incon- 
sistent, and  as  Mr.  Coulling  himself  is  when  he  preaches 
against  immersion  and  then  administers  it.  Now  let  us 
see  what  Dr.  Howell  did  say,  and  whether  he  has  been 
fairly  quoted  by  Dr.  Lee's  protege.  I  read  from  Howell 
on  Communion,  page  98  : 

"  Those  Christians  who  sincerely  and  conscientiously 
exclude  baptism  from  their  system,  may  act  in  the  mat- 
ter to  please  themselves." 

What  Christians  are  those  who  conscientiously  ex- 
clude baptism  from  their  system  ?  My  Episcopal  friends, 
my  Presbyterian  friends,  my  Methodist  friends,  do  not 
exclude  baptism  from  their  system.  J  do  not  deny  their 
conscientiousness.  I  do  not  claim  that  those  who  do 
not  believe  with  me  are  dishonest  and  insincere.  If  I 
go  to  an  Episcopalian  and  ask  him,  "  Sir,  have  you  been 
baptized  ?"  and  he  tells  me  "  yes,"  I  do  not  deny  that 
he  believes  he  has  been  baptized — that  he  believes  the 
rite  to  which  he  submitted  was  baptism.  And  so  wdth 
the  Presbyterian  ;  so  with  others.  Now  remember  that 
Mr.  Coulling  has  taken  the  ground  that  no  baptism  is  a 
prerequisite  to  the  Lord's  Supper.  Dr.  Howell  con- 
tinues : 

"  Those  Christians  who  sincerely  and  conscientiously 
exclude  baptism  from  their  system,  may  act  in  the  mat- 
ter to  please  themselves It  is  no  concern  of  ours 

To  their  own  master  they  stand  or  fall.     They  have,  it 


360  RELATIVE    ORDER    OF 

may  be,  '  conscientiously  mistaken  the  mind  of  Christ.' 
They  govern  themselves,  individually  and  as  churches, 
by  their  own  convictions  of  obligation.  Bat  am  I,  be- 
cause such  is  the  state  of  the  case,  required,  or  if  I  felt 
inclined  to  do  so,  am  I  parmitted  to  infringe  inspired  in- 
junctions by  recognizing  their  sincerity  in  error  as  a  sub- 
stitute for  the  practice  of  the  truth,  and  that,  too,  for 
no  other  reason  than  to  prove  that  '  I  entertain  for  them 
a  very  high  Christian  regard'  ?" 

They  claim  to  be  conscientious,  and  they  admit  that 
I  am.  /  think  they  are  mistaken  ;  they  \h\vi\i  I  am.  If 
I  should  sacrifice  my  conscientious  principles,  I  would 
forfeit  their  confidence^  just  as  they  ivould  forfeit  mine 
by  acknowledging  that  they  were  not  conscientious. 

"  Am  I  told  that  I  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  faith 
of  another  ?  that  he  is  accountable  alone  to  G-od  ?  All 
this  is  true  as  long  as  he  makes  no  pretensions  to  con- 
nect himself  with  me  in  Church  fellowship.  But  apply 
the  doctrine  to  Church  discipline,  that  we  have  no  right 
to  inquire  into  the  faith  of  our  associates,  and  whom 
could  you  ever  exclude  for  heresy.  Unitarians,  Mor- 
mons, Universalists,  and  all  other  defamers  of  evangeli- 
cal piety,  might  fix  themselves  upon  you  like  an  incubus, 
and  you  would  be  destitute  of  any  remedy  whatever. 

So,  when  an  individual  enters  the  Church,  he  declares 
his  union  with  the  faith  of  the  Church.  Does  a  Pedo- 
baptist  honestly  believe,  after  an  impartial  examination 
of  the  best  evidence  to  which  he  can  gain  access  on  the 
subject,  that  he  has  received  Christian  baptism,  and  that 
he  has  truly  entered  the  congregation  of  Christ,  in  the 
way  of  the  divine  appointment  ?  Let  him  prosecute  the 
course  he  has  adopted.     Bat,  certainly,  he  has  no  right  to 


THE   lord's  supper.  361 

expect  me,  oa  that  account,  to  abandon  my  own  convic- 
tions, and  to  unite  with  him  in  those  practices  which  he 
may  have  thought  proper  to  adopt.  I  am  guided  by  my 
own  faith,  and  not  by  the  faith  of  any  other  man.  Bap- 
tism, without  a  profession  of  faith,  is  justified  as  readily 
as  the  administration  of  the  Lord's  Supper  without  bap- 
tism. They  have  no  Scriptural  authority  for  either,  but 
they  do  both.  They  act  upon  their  own  belief,  and  upon 
their  own  responsibility.  But  in  neither  case  may  tha 
dictates  of  their  consciences  be  the  directory  for  my  ac- 
tions. It  is  no  more  a  consequence  that,  because  on 
their  own  principles  they  are  entitled  to  approach  the 
Lord's  table,  that,  therefore,  it  is  my  duty  to  unite  with 
them  in  that  ordinance,  than  that,  because  on  their  own 
principles  they  are  obliged  to  baptize  their  infants,  that, 
therefore,  I  am  required  to  unite  with  them  in  that  cere- 
mony." 

Now  Whitney,  going  first  to  the  99th  and  then  to  the 
107th  page,  and  taking  some  from  each,  throws  them 
together  without  informing  us  that  he  is  blending  dis- 
jointed sentences  together,  and  makes  Dr.  Howell  seem  to 
say  what  he  does  not  say.  He  is  replying  to  an  objec- 
tion, and  says  : 

"  Yes,  it  is  the  Lord's  table.  All  his  children  have  an 
undoubted  right  to  it,  because  what  is  his  is  theirs.  We 
are  not  permitted  to  preclude  them.  We  make  no  such 
pretensions.  But  has  the  Lord  established  no  laws  for 
the  government  of  the  feast  ?  If  it  should  appear  that 
He  has  not,  w^e  will  admit  of  none.  Were  it  our  table, 
we  would  invite  all  our  friends,  and  rejoice  in  their 
society.  It  is  not  ours ;  it  is  the  Lord's  table.  All 
confess,  too,  that  He  has  enacted   laws   for  its  govern- 

*  16 


362  RELATIVE    ORDER    OF 

merit,  and  that  they  are  paramount.  What  these  laws 
are  we  have  ah'eady  been  sufficiently  informed.  AVe 
need  not  repeat  them.  Pedobaptists  themselves  fully 
concur  with  us  in  relation  to  some  of  them.  Dr.  S.  D. 
Griffin,  the  late  learned  President  of  Williams'  College, 
in  his  well-known  Letter  on  Communion,  embodies 
them  in  a  small  compass.  '  I  agree,'  says  the  erudite 
President,  '  with  the  advocates  of  close  communion,  in 
two  points  :  ffi'st,  that  baptism  is  the  initiatory  ordi- 
nance that  introduces  us  into  the  visible  Church  ;  and, 
second,  that  we  ought  not  to  commune  with  those  who 
are  not  baptized,  and,  of  course,  not  members  of  the 
Church,  even  if  we  regard  them  as  Christians." 

Now,  this  is  the  position  occupied  by  Pedobaptists,  as 
well  as  by  Baptist  authorities.  I  am  not  showing 
tvliat  baptism  is.  But  is  baptism  a  prerequisite  to  the 
LoriVs  Supper  I  That  is  the  question  to  be  deter- 
mined. Mr.  CouLLiNG  declares  that  the  right  to  partake 
of  the  Lord's  Supper  is  not  restricted  to  those  who  have 
received  Christian  baptism.  Has  he  shown  you  any- 
thing in  the  Word  of  G-od  to  support  his  theory  ?  Until 
he  does  that^  he  fails  to  sustain  his  position.  If  he  fails 
to  sustain  it,  his  failure  gives  my  cause  all  the  support 
that  is  necessary.  But  I  will  not  leave  this  subject  so 
bare  of  interest  as  it  would  stand  if  I  were  simply  to 
act  on  the  defensive.  I  am  willing  to  advance  argu- 
ments— to  lead  as  well  as  to  follow.  Mr.  Coulling  has 
labored,  and  that  with  a  right  good  will,  to  convince 
this  congregation  that  baptism  has  taken  the  place  of  cir- 
cumcision. Upon  that  ground  alone  he  baptizes  infants. 
Yet  he  declared  to  you  that  no  uncircumcised  person 
was  to  partake  of  the  Passover — he  ivas  to  be  cut  off. 


363 


He  said  something  the  other  day  about  my  cutting  the 
throat  of  my  argument,  and  the  blood  gushing  forth. 
Now  I  do  not  think  that  much  blood  will  flow  here,  for 
it  is  too  ivatery  an  argument  to  admit  of  much  evidence 
of  vitality  ;  but  if  he  does  not  Jet  out  what  little  life 
there  ivas  in  his  whole  argument  on  infant  baptism,  I 
do  not  see  how  he  can  possibly  sustain  his  present 
hypothesis.  One  or  the  other  must  give  up  the  ghost. 
The  support  of  one  is  death  to  the  other. 

Having  answered  all  that  the  gentleman  has  said  in 
his  speech  of  an  hour  and  a  quarter  that  deserves  my 
attention,  I  must  now  either  wait  until  he  advances  an 
argument  for  me  to  reply  to,  or  I  must  advance  argu- 
ments against  the  proposition  he  lays  down.  I  shall  en- 
deavor deliberately  to  present  to  you  such  a  train  of  ar- 
gument, such  reasons,  and  such  evidences  from  the 
word  of  G-od,  as  will  show  that  he  is  wrong,  when  he 
asserts  that  the  Scriptural  right  to  partake  of  the  Lord's 
supper  is  not  restricted  to  those  who  have  received  Chris- 
tian baptism. 

I  will  submit  to  you  a  few  plain  propositions,  which  I 
think  must  commend  themselves  to  your  favor.  My 
propositions  are  : 

1st.  Some  acknowledgment  of  allegiance  to  gov- 
ernmental authority  must  be  made,  before  the  right  to 
the  protection  and  privileges  of  the  government  can  be 
claimed.  This  rule  is  applicable  everywhere,  and  to 
every  government,  whether  of  human  or  of  divine  institu- 
tion. No  one  can  rightfully  claim  the  protection  of  the 
government,  and  the  privileges  enjoyed  under  it,  without 
some  acknowledgment  of  allegiance  to  that  government. 

Secondly  :  This  acknowledgment  must  be  such  as  the 


364  RELATIVE    ORDER    OF 

supreme  authority  recognizes  and  approbates.  A  man 
who  comes  from  a  foreisfn  shore  to  our  land  and  claims 
the  protection  of  our  flag,  and  a  right  to  all  the  privi- 
leges of  our  citizens,  while  he  refuses  to  give  any  sort 
of  evidence  of  allegiance  to  our  government,  evinces 
a  want  of  correct  information  with  regard  to  the  differ- 
ence to  he  expected  from  a  government  to  the  citizen, 
and  to  an  individual  who  is  not  a  citizen. 

For  a  man  to  claim  that  he  is  entitled  to  all  the 
rights  of  citizenship,  hecause  he  has  made  some  ack- 
nowledgment which  in  his  mind  is  sufficient,  hut 
which  is  not  recognized  by  the  government  as  suffi- 
cient, would  by  no  means  remove  the  difficulty.  He, 
as  the  subject,  must  not  determine  what  act  of  his 
shall  satisfy  the  government  of  his  loyalty.  The  gov- 
ernment  must  determine  hoio  he  shall  declare  his  alle- 
giance, and  he  must  conform  to  its  requirements. 

Now,  apply  these  principles  to  the  subject  under  con- 
sideration, and  it  will  be  manifest  in  the  first  place,  that 
no  one  has  a  right  to  the  privileges  to  which  the  disci- 
ples of  Jesus  Christ  are  entitled,  without  making  some 
ackyiowledgment  of  allegiance  to  the  King  in  Zion, 
and  in  the  next  place,  that  the  character  of  that  ac- 
knowjedgment  of  allegiance  must  be  determined  by  him 
ivho  governs,  and  not  by  him  who  desires  to  secure  the 
benefits  which  the  Kingdom  of  Jesus  Christ  grants. 
Thirdly  :  The  Lord's  Supper  is  a  social  ordinance.  By 
this  I  mean  that  it  is  not,  like  baptism,  an  ordinance  in 
which  a  single  individual  is  concerned.  Dr.  Hall,  as 
read  by  the  gentleman  to-day,  admits  that  fact.  "We 
do  not  administer  the  Lord's  Supper  to  a  single  individ- 
ual only.     It  is  a  social  ordinance,  in  which  a  Church 


365 


unites  ;  not  an  ordinance  standing  at  the  beginning  of 
the  Christian  life,  but  one  to  be  observed  through  all 
the  future  of  the  life  of  the  disciple  of  Jesus  Christ. 
My  next  proposition  is,  that  while  it  is  a  social  ordi- 
nance, it  should  not  be  participated  in  by  an  indiscrimi- 
nate association  of  persons,  but  by  such  as  acknowledge 
subjection  to  Christ.  Suppose  a  company  of  men,  mak- 
ing no  profession  of  fellowship  with  Jesus  Christ,  should 
meet  together,  and  partake  of  bread  and  wine,  would 
it  be  a  proper  observance  of  the  Lord's  Supper  ?  It  is 
not  only  a  social  ordinance,  but  to  render  its  observance 
acceptable  to  G-od,  the  association  must  be  of  a  proper 
character. 

The  question  which  arises  from  these  premises  is,  by 
ivhat  act  shall  "  aliens  from  the  commonwealth  of  Is- 
rael, and  strangers  from  the  covenants  of  promise,"  de- 
clare their  allegiance  to  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  ?  A  man 
may  publish  his  faith  m,  or  his  allegiance  to,  Christ  in 
the  newspapers  ;  or  he  may  proclaim  it  to  a  congrega- 
tion. There  are  many  ways  by  which  he  may  choose  to 
make  known  his  allegiance.  Bat  is  any  one  of  these 
the  plan  that  God  has  ordained,  by  which  we  shall  con- 
fess our  allegiance  to  him  ?  That  is  the  question.  When 
John,  the  harbinger  of  Jesus  Christ,  came  preaching 
the  baptism  of  repentance  for  the  remission  of  sins,  it 
was  declared  of  him,  that  there  was  a  man  ^^  sent  from 
God  whose  name  was  John."  He  came  for  an  express 
purpose.  The  question  has  often  been  asked,  vjho  bap- 
tized John  ?  •  John  stood,  not  entering  into  this  new 
kingdom,  but,  as  the  usher er,  inducting  others  into  it  by 
God's  oivn  appointment.  "When  John  preached  the  gos- 
pel, what  followed  ?     ''  They  ivere  baptized  of  him,  con- 


366  RELATIVE    ORDER    OF 

fessing  their  sins.^^  Here  was  the  act,  by  which  they 
declared  their  allegiance  to  this  Messiah  of  whom  John 
spoke.  I  am  not  left  to  infe?'  this.  Jesus  Christ  settles 
that  question  definitely.  Turn  to  Luke  vii. :  29  and  30, 
and  you  w^ill  find  : 

"  And  all  the  people  that  heard  him  (John),  and  the 
publicans,  justified  God,  being  baptized  with  the  bap- 
tism of  John."  The?/  acknoiuledged  their  allegiance  to 
Jesus  Christ  by  "  being  baptized  with  the  baptism  of 
JohnP  Here  was  the  evidence  that  they  justified  God, 
that  they  believed  the  testimony  of  John,  and  acknowl- 
edged their  allegiance  to  the  promised  Messiah. 

"  But  the  Pharisees  and  lawyers  rejected  the  counsel 
of  God  against  themselves,  not  being  baptized  of  him." 

The  divine  Master  himself  has  settled  the  question, 
that  the  ivay  by  which  men  must  acknowledge  their  al- 
legiance to  the  Messiah,  is  by  being  baptized,  and  that 
their  refusal  to  be  baptized,  is  a  refusal  to  acknowledge 
their  allegiance  to  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Here  is,  then, 
direct,  positive  demonstration  that  this  is  the  act  by 
which  men  must  acknowledge  their  allegiance  to  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Now  look,  if  you  please,  at  another 
passage.  You  will  find  in  the  first  chapter  of  Acts,  that 
the  eleven  apostles,  after  the  apostaoy  of  Judas,  assem- 
bled together  to  select  a  successor  to  him.  The  number 
of  disciples  who  were  present,  it  is  said,  were  about  a 
hundred  and  twenty.  And  Peter  stood  up  in  the  midst 
of  them,  and  said  : 

"  Men  and  brethren,  the  Scriptures  must  needs  have 
been  fulfilled,  which  the  Holy  Ghost  by  the  mouth  of 
David  spake  before  concerning  Judas,  which  was  guide 
to  them  that  took  Jesus.  For  he  was  numbered  with  us, 
and  had  obtained  part  of  this  ministry." 


THE  lord's  supper.  ^67 

*'  Wherefore  of  these  men  which  have  companied  with 
us,  all  the  time  that  the  Lord  Jesus  went  in  and  out 
among  us,  beginning  from  the  baptism  of  Jolm,  unto 
that  same  day  that  he  was  taken  up  from  us,  must  one 
be  ordained  to  be  a  loitfiess  with  us  of  his  resurrection.''^ 

The  gentleman  seems  at  a  great  loss  to  know  ivhen 
and  ivhere  these  disciples,  and  the  five  hundred,  and  va- 
rious others,  were  baptized,  or  whether  they  were  bap- 
tized at  all.  Why  were  the  apostles  so  careful  to  select 
a  successor  to  Judas  from  those  baptized  of  John,  if  they 
themselves  luere  unbaptized  ?  Another  question  :  when 
Jesus  Christ  was  selecting  the  witnesses  of  his  resurrec- 
tion^ the  pillars  of  his  Church,  the  heralds  of  his  cross, 
who  should  be  the  first  to  bear  the  glad  tidings  of  salva- 
tion to  others  :  from  whom  did  he  select  them  ?  Noth- 
ing can  be  more  absurd  than  the  idea  that  he  selected 
them  from  those  Vv^ho  "rejected  the  counsel  of  God 
against  themselves."  What  I  send  forth  to  proclaim  his 
truth  those  w^ho  rejected  that  truth  !  Never  !  He  se- 
lected those  who  "justified  God."  But,  how  do  we 
know  who  '^justified  God  ?"  They  were  baptized  vnth 
the  baptism  of  John.  Jesus  Christ  declared  this  fact, 
and  settles  forever  that  question ;  establishing,  beyond 
a  rational  doubt,  the  fact  that  none  ivere  recognized  as 
the  disciples  of  Jesus  Christ,  until  they  declared  their 
allegiance  to  him  by  being  baptized. 

The  gentleman  seeks  to  make  capital  of  the  fact  that 
the  Lord's  Supper  was  instituted  prior  to  the  giving  of 
the  commission  under  which  we  are  -acting  as  servants 
of  Jesus  Christ.  He  ought  to  know  that  Christianity,  in 
its  first  introduction,  was  progressive.  That  Jesus  Christ 
unfolded  truths  to,  and  urged  duties  upon,  the  minds  of 


368  RELATIVE    ORDKR    OF 

his  disciples,  just  as  they  were  prepared  to  receive  them. 
He  gradually  led  them  along,  giving  them  instruction  as 
it  became  necessary.  Hence  baptism,  being  not  only  the 
first  act  of  Christian  obedience,  but  the  ordinance  in  which 
those  who  had  become  Christ's  disciples  in  heart,  were 
to  declare  their  discipleship  to  the  world,  lay  at  the'very 
threshold  of  the  Christian  life,  and  was,  therefore,  the 
first  Christian  ordinance  instituted.  But,  as  the  "  Lord's 
Supper"  derives  all  its  beauty  and  significance  from  the 
sufferings  and  death  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  could  be  of  no 
utility  until  after  the  "  breaking  of  his  body  and  the 
shedding  of  his  blood,"  it  was  not  instituted  until  the 
very  night  on  which  he  was  betrayed.  The  time  had 
then  fully  arrived  for  the  institution  of  this  last  ordi- 
nance. Fit  indeed  was  the  occasion  for  so  solemn  a  ser- 
vice. Events  of  the  most  solemn  and  trying  character  were 
clustering  around  the  ''  Master  of  the  feast."  He  was 
soon  to  pass  through  the  agonies  of  Gethsemane,  and 
the  still  more  bitter  agonies  of  the  cross.  "Having  loved 
his  own  which  were  in  the  world,  he  loved  them  to  the 
end."  And  now,  as  a  father,  whose  life  has  been  devoted 
to  the  welfare  of  his  children,  and  whose  heart  still 
yearns  over  them,  gathers  them  around  his  dying  couch, 
that  he  may  give  them  his  last  parting  admonition,  Jesus 
Christ  gathers  around  him  those  who  had  attested 
their  faith  in  him,  and  their  love  and  obedience  to  him, 
by  submitting  to  his  first  ordinance,  baptism,  that  he 
may  give  them  another  ordinance,  by  the  observance  of 
which,  through  all  future  time,  they  were  to  "show 
forth  the  Lord's  death  till  he  come." 

Is  there  in  this  entire  audience  one  single  individual 
who  believes  that  any  but  the  professed  friends,  the  pro- 


369 


fessed  disciples  of  Jesus  Christ,  were  asseraHed  with 
him  upon  this  solemn  occasion  ?  I  think  I  can  safely 
assume  that  no  such  person  is  in  this  congregation. 

Furthermore,  after  what  has  been  said,  are  not  every- 
one of  you  satisfied  that  all  who  were  present  had  proven 
their  discipleship  by  being  baptized  ?  Do  you  not  all 
concur  with  me,  when  I  affirm  that  the  evidence  is  con- 
clusive that  no  unbaptized  person  was  present  on  that 
occasion  ?     I  believe  you  do. 

Having  shown  you  that  all  who  partook  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  before  the  crucifixion  of  Jesus  Christ,  were  bap- 
tized before  they  received  it,  I  will  now  show  you  that, 
according  to  the  commission,  the  same  order  must  still 
be  observed,  and  that  the  apostles  themselves  so  under- 
stood it,  and  so  practiced  and  taught. 

Jesus  Christ,  after  declaring  that  all  power  in  heaven 
above  and  in  earth  beneath  was  given  unto  him,  said  to 
his  disciples :  "  G-o  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations, 
baptizing  them  into  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the 
Son,  and  of  the  Holy  G-host :  teaching  them  to  observe 
all  things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you.  And  lo  ! 
I  am  with  you  always,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world." 

All  men  to  whom  the  gospel  was  to  be  preached,  after 
this  commission  was  given,  as  I  have  shown  upon  a 
former  occasion,  must  of  necessity  hear  the  gospel  before 
they  could  believe  it  and  receive  it.  They  rmx^t  first  be 
taught  and  instructed.  This  is  learned  from  the  order 
in  which  these  things  are  laid  down.  The  first  duty 
enjoined  upon  believers — the  one  that  stands  at  the  very 
threshold  of  their  Christian  life — is,  to  be  baptized  im- 
mediately upon  their  exercising  faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ.     The  gentleman  is  fond,  perhaps,  of  Methodist, 

16* 


870  RELATIVE    ORDER    OF 

as  well  as  Baptist  authority;  though  I  think  he  likes 
the  authority  of  Hall  and  Whitney  rather  better  than 
that  we  had  been  having  before.  I  really  think,  accord- 
ing to  his  views,  the  Methodists  will  have  to  rub  out  and 
commence  afresh  ;  they  will  have  to  lay  aside  Clarke, 
Wesley,  and  Hibbard ;  repudiate  McKnight,  Stuart, 
and  every  other  v/riter  that  they  or  other  Pedobaptists 
have  ever  received  instruction  from — wipe  them  all  out, 
and  get  the  Rev.  Mr.  Coulling-  to  write  one  great  com- 
mentary/ upon  the  Bible.  Methodism  must  date,  hence- 
forth, from  the  year  1860.  For  if  he  lays  aside  all  these 
writers,  he  will  have  very  little  to  claim  for  the  support 
of  his  Church.  He  must  reject  them,  for  he  asks, 
"  What  sort  of  importance  ought  to  be  attached  to  the 
authority  of  those  who  say  one  thing  and  do  another  ?" 
— who  say  that  immersion  was  the  apostolic  mode  of 
baptism,  and  then  adopt  or  practise  sprinkling- ;  who 
say  that  believers  are  the  proper  subjects  of  baptism, 
according  to  the  Bible,  and  then  baptize  infants.  I 
hope  that  at  the  next  conference  these  things  will  be 
inquired  into.  When  the  question  comes  up,  "Is  there 
anything  against  Brother  Clarke,  or  Father  Wesley  ?" 
"  Yes,""  Brother  Coulling  will  respond:  "/  object  to 
them-  seriously  ;  they  have  admitted  a  great  many  things 
that  the  Baptists  have  used  against  us,  and  I  have  no 
confidence  in  men  who  preach  one  thing  and  practise 
another ;  though  /  often  preach  against  immersion 
with  all  my  power,  and  will  yet  administer  it  rather 
than  lose  a  member,  provided  the  iveather  is  not  too 
cold.''''  "  And  how  about  the  Episcopalians?"  "  I  ob- 
ject to  them  too,  because  they  acknowledge  that  none 
but  the  members  of  a  Church,  those  who  have  been  bap- 


THE   lord's  supper.  371 

tized^  are  entitled   to   the   Lord's  Supper :  while  I  say 
that  the  right  to  partake  of  the  Lord's .  Supper  is  not 
restricted   to  those  who  have   received   Christian  bap- 
tism."     "How  about  the   Presbyterians?"     "Why,  I 
object  to  them  too ;  for  they  claim,  among  other  absurd- 
ities, that  the  giving  the  Lord's  Supper  to  the  unbapiized 
is  not  right.     And  I  claim  that  they  are  all  ivrong.'''' 
Every  Church,   every  denomination,  according  to   Mr. 
CouUing,  has  fallen  into  a  great  error,  and  he  has  risen  as 
the  great  sun  of  the  nineteenth  century  to  shed  neio  lights 
and  to  set  them  all  right.     I  hope  he  will  never  again 
suppose  that  I  charge  him  with  having  "  a  screw  loose." 
I  now  present  you  "  Christian  Baptism  :  its  mode,  obli- 
gation, import,  and  relative  order,  by  Rev.  Freeborn  G-. 
Hibbard,  of  the  Grenesee   Conference,"   "Published  by 
G-.  Lane   and  P.  P.  Sandford,  for  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church,   at  the   Conference    Office,  200  Mulberry- 
street."     I   will  cross-examine  this  witness.     But  Mr. 
CouLLiNG  says  he  does  not  understand  that  sort  of  cross- 
examination.       Let  me  illustrate  the  position  of  these 
witnesses :  Suppose  that  some  man  is  charged  with  the 
commission  of  an  offence,  and,  to  establish  that  charge, 
I  summon  his  father,  his  brothers,  and  his  bosom  com- 
panions.      They  come    into    court   and    testify   to   the 
guilt  of  the  party   accused.     You  will  say   that  these 
men    must    have    spoken    what    they    conscientiously 
believed  to  be  trut.     All  their  partialities  and  preposses- 
sions w^ould   prompt  them   to  a  different  course.     And 
yet,  notwithstanding  this,  they   acknowledge,  their  son, 
brother,  and  companion,  to  be  guilty  of  the  charge!    Now 
these  men  have  been  the  expounders  of  the  views  advo- 
cated by  the  opposite  side  from  time  immemorial — No  ! 


372  RELATIVE    ORDER    OF 

I  will  take  that  back  ;  that  would  run  hack  beyond 
the  existence  of  Methodism.  We  will  take  him  from 
his  boyhood  up;  that  will  not  require  us  to  go  back 
further  than  the  last  hundred  years.  These  men  have 
been  held  up  as  the  expounders  of  Methodism^  and  the 
advocates  of  its  cause  from  its  origin  till  7iow.  They 
are  their  witnesses^  published  by  their  Conference^  and 
sent  abroad  over  the  land  to  prove  what  they  believe. 
Now  let  us  hear  Dr.  Hibbard.     On  page  174,  he  says  : 

'•  Before  entering  upon  the  argument  before  us,  it  is 
but  just  to  remark  that  in  one  principle  the  Baptist  and 
Pedobaptist  Churches  agree.  They  both  agree  in  re- 
jecting from  communion  at  the  table  of  the  Lord,  and 
in  denying  the  right  of  Church  fellowship  to  all  who 
have  not  been  baptized.  Valid  baptism  they  consider 
as  essential  to  constitute  visible  Church  membership. 
This,  also,  we  hold." 

Who  holds  this  ?  We,  the  Methodist  Church.  Does 
brother  Coulling  stand  here  to-day  as  the  great  ex- 
pounder of  Methodism,  and  say,  that  baptism  is  not  to  be 
required  before  receiving  the  liord's  Supper  ?  You  have 
not  so  learned  Methodism,  my  old  Methodist  friends.  The 
gentleman  repudiates  your  oivn  doctrine,  discipline,  and 
everything  else.  He  marks  out  a  new  course  for  him- 
self; sets  up  a  7ieiv  order  of  things.  I  wonder  if  you 
will  not  build  him  a   monument.     His  witness  says  : 

"  The  only  question,  then,  that  here  divides  us,  is,  'what 
is  essential  to  valid  baptism  V  The  Baptists,  in  passing 
the  sweeping  sentence  of  disfranchisement  upon  all 
other  Christian  Churches,  have  only  acted  upon  a  principle 
held  in  common  v/ith  all  other  Christian  Churches, 
viz. :  that  baptism  is  essential  to  Church  membership." 


I^THE  lord's  supper.  873 

Who  says  this  ?  Why,  brother  Coulling^s  brother 
Hibbard. 

"  They  have  denied  oar  baptism,  and,  as  unbaptized 
persons,  we  have  been  excluded  from  their  table.  That 
they  err  greatly  in  their  views  of  Christian  baptism,  we, 
of  course,  believe."  [We  are  not  discussing  what  bap- 
tism is  now  ;  we  have  done  that.]  "  But,  according  to 
their  view  of  baptism,  they  certainly  are  consistent  in 
restricting  thus  their  communion.  We  would  not  be 
understood  as  passing  a  judgment  of  approval  upon  their 
course  ;  but  we  say,  their  views  of  baptism  force  them 
upon  the  ground  of  strict  communion,  and  herein  they 
act  upon  the  same  principles  as  other  Churches,  i.  e,, 
they  admit  only  those  whom  they  deem  baptized  persons 
to  the  communion  table.  Of  course,  they  rnust  be  their 
own  judges  as  to  what  baptism  is." 

Now,  I  think  he  is  just  as  charitable  as  brother  Coul- 
ling.  He  allows  each  to  decide  for  himself.  Baptists, 
I  suppose,  may  have  the  privilege,  under  the  stars  and 
stripes,  to  decide  for  themselves,  as  the  brother  thinks 
that  no  man  dares  molest  Mm  under  them. 

Let  us  hear  this  Methodist  D.  D.  a  little  further.  He 
talks  well  : 

"  It  is  evident  that,  according  to  our  views  of  bap- 
tism, we  can  admit  them  to  our  communion  ;  but,  with 
their  views  of  baptism,  it  is  equally  evident,  they  can 
never  reciprocate  the  courtesy.  And  the  charge  of  close 
communion  is  no  more  applicable  to  the  Baptists  than  to 
us.  [Who  says  this  ?  '  Published  by  the  General  Con- 
ference of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.'^]  i\.nd  the 
charge  of  close  communion  is  no  more  applicable  to  the 
Baptists  than  to  us,  inasmuch  as  the  question  of  Church 


874  RELATIVE    ORDER    OF 

fellowship  with  them  is  determined  by  as  liberal  prin- 
ciples as  it  is  with  any  other' Protestant  Church;  so 
far,  I  mean,  as  the  present  subject  is  concerned  ;  i.  e., 
it  is  determined  by  valid  baptism." 

Now,  that  is  right  good.  Let  us  have  a  little  more 
of  him  : 

"  The  first  argument  under  this  head  is  based  upon 
the  order  of  the  apostolic  commission." 

Mr.  Hibbard  quotes  Robert  Hall,  and  replies  to  him, 
so  I  need  have  no  trouble  about  him.  Mr.  Hibbard  re- 
phes  to  him  for  me.  He  seems  to  have  anticipated  that 
brother  Coulling  would  fall  out  of  the  Methodist  traces, 
read  out  all  the  Pedobaptist  divines,  and  bring  up  brother 
Hall  to  sustain  him  ;  and,  he  seems  to  say,  "  /will  be 
there,  and  eorrect  the  gentleman  as  he  goes  along." 

Look  out,  my  brother !  A  Methodist  Doctor  of  Di- 
vinity is  after  you  I  How  dare  you  to  ''  disseminate 
doctrines  contrary  to  o^*r  Articles  of  Religion  ?"  Listen 
to  this  instruction  : 

"  The  first  argument  under  this  head  is  based  upon 
the  order  of  the  apostolic  commission.  The  words  of 
the  commission,  as  given  by  Matthew,  (chap,  xxviii.,  19, 
20.)  run  thus :  '  Gro  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations, 
baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the 
Son,  and  of  the  Holy  G-host ;  teaching  them  to  observe 
all  things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you,'  &c.  It 
is  well  known  that  our  English  version  does  not  give  a 
satisfactory  view  of  this  passage.  The  word  rendered 
teach  in  the  nineteenth  verse,  is  altogether  a  different 
word,  in  the  Greek  text,  from  that  which  is  rendered 
teach^  in  verse  twenty.  It  should  read  :  '  Go  ye,' there- 
fore, and  disciple,'  i.  e.,  make  converts  to    Christianity 


375 


of  {}iadr]T£vaare)  all  nations,  baptizing  them,'  &o.,  .  .  . 
teaching'  (SidaaKovreg)  them  to  observe,'  &c.  Here  it  is 
to  be  observed :  first,  certain  things  are  enjoined,  viz.  : 
to  disciple,  to  baptize,  and  to  teach ;  secondly,  those 
things  are.  enjoined  in  a  certain  order,  viz. :  the  order  in 
which  they  stand  in  the  divine  commission.  The  apostles 
were  first  required  to  persuade  the  people  to  forsake 
heathenism  and  Judaism,  and  embrace  Christianity. 
This  being  done,  the  next  injunction  in  order,  in  their 
commission,  was  to  baptize  them.  Being  thus  brought 
into  a  Church  relationship  with  one  another,  and  to 
visible  relation  to  Christ,  they  were  to  be  taught  to 
observe  all  things  whatsoever  Christ  had  commanded." 

Now,  does  not  that  strike  every  one  of  you  as  a  ra- 
tional, common-sense  view  of  the  plain  teachings  of  the 
Word  of  God  ?     But  to  go  on  : 

"  Our  second  argument  is  drawn  from  apostolic  pre- 
cedent. It  will  be  more  satisfactory  to  inquire,  Hovv^ 
did  the  apostles  understand  their  commission  with  re- 
spect to  the  relative  order  of  the  Christian  institutes? 
The  argument  from  apostolic  precedent  is  undeniably 
important.  They  were  commissioned  to  teach  the  con- 
verted nations  '  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever'  Christ 
had  commanded.     This  was  the   extent,  and  this  the 

limit   of   their    authority What,    then,    did   the 

apostles  teach  and  practise,  with  respect  to  the  time  and 
relative  order  of  baptism  ?" 

I  am  glad  they  were  not  quite  so  inconsistent  as 
Pedobaptists  (as  represented  by  Mr.  Coulling)  are,  to 
preach  one  thing  and  practise  another.  The  apos- 
tles taught  and  practised  the  same  things.  They 
must  have  been  Baptists,  for  they  were  very  consistent. 


376  RELATIVE    ORDER    OP 

"  On  the  day  of  Pentecost,"  says  Dr.  Hibbard,  "  when 
the  people  inquired  of  the  apostles,  '  Men  and  brethren, 
what  shall  we  do?'  Peter  answered,  'Repent  and  be 
baptized,  every  one  of  you.'  " 

That  is  Ihe  first  dnty  enjoined.  Now,  it  is  fair 
to  suppose  that  the  apostles  were  as  capable  of  under- 
standing the  commission  under  which  they  acted,  as 
men  of  modern  days  who  even  have  no  loose  screw. 
Men  of  the  brightest  intellects  will  scarcely  claim  to 
understand  it  better  than  the  apostles  did.  And  bear  in 
mind,  my  hearers,  I  make  this  reference  to  a  screw 
being  loose,  simply  because  the  brother  has  so  often 
quoted  it,  as  though  I  had  applied  it  to  him,  which  I 
never  did,  and  which  I  never  intended  to  do.  I  simply 
refer  to  it  because  he  has  referred  to  it,  as  though  he 
had  received  that  impression,  and  not  replying  to  it 
might  leave  that  impression  upon  others.  I  have  not 
the  slightest  idea  of  being  discourteous  to  him  in  any 
ivay  ivhatever,  as  long  as  he  keeps  ivithin  the  bounds  of 
right.  I  am  very  sorry  that  either  of  us  made  it  neces- 
sary for  the  moderators  to  call  us  to  order.  But  they 
agreed  this  morning  that  we  occupied  similar  ground  ; 
first,  one  was  out  of  order  in  his  statement,  and  then 
the  other  was  out  of  order  in  replying  to  it. 

Mr.  Anderson  :  (Moderator).  I  think  you  are  not 
now  in  order. 

Mr.  Massey  :  I  submit  to  the  moderators,  if  apolo- 
gizing for  anything  that  might  bo  construed  as  discour- 
teous is  out  of  order  ? 

Mr.  Anderson  :  It  is  not  the  point  under  discussion. 

Mr.  Massey  :  (To  the  other  moderators).  Is  it  out  of 
order  to  apologize  for  what  may  have  seemed  to  be 
discourteous  ? 


377 


Mr.  Hansborough  :  It  may  not  be  appropriate  to  the 
subject  under  discussion,  but  I  do  not  consider  it  out  of 
order,  or  in  any  ivay  disorderly. 

Mr.  Masse Y  :  I  was  not  arguing  it  as  appropriate  to 
the  subject  under  discussion,  but  simply  apologizing 
for  ^Yhat  might  have  seemed,  under  the  circumstances,  to 
offend  against  good  taste.  (To  the  congregation).  I  ivill 
make  no  more  apologies,  as  one  of  the  moderators  ap- 
pears to  be  very  sensitive. 

Mr.  Anderson  :  I  will  keep  you  in  m*der,  if  I  can. 

Mr.  Massey  (AVithout  replying  to  this  remark,  pro- 
ceeded) :  Before  reading  farther  what  Mr.  Hibbard 
says,  I  again  remark,  it  is  fair  to  presume  that  the  apos- 
tles had  a  correct  understanding  of  the  commission 
under  which  they  acted.  Let  us  see  hoiv  they  acted 
under  it.  Mr.  Hibbard  furnishes  us  with  this  collection 
of  their  acts  : 

"Luke  sums  up  the  glorious  results  of  that  memor- 
able day  (Pentecost),  thus  :  '  Then  they  that  gladly 
received  the  word  were  baptized  ;  and  the  same  day 
were  added  to  the  Church  about  three  thousand  souls, 
and  they  continued  steadfastly  in  the  apostles'  doctrine 
and  fellowship,  and  in  breaking  of  bread  gwid  in  prayers.' 
Acts  ii.  41,  42.  This  was  the  first  occasion  on  which 
the  apostles  were  called  upon  to  exercise  their  high  com- 
mission. It  was  only  ten  days  after  they  had  received 
that  commission,  and  the  freshness  of  that  event,  and 
the  plenary  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Spirit  now  received, 
all  combined  to  render  it  certain  that  on  this  occasion 
they  would  not  act  under  the  influence  of  any  mistaken 
views  as  to  their  duty,  or  the  powers  of  their  office. 
And  here,  indeed,  we  are  called  upon  to  notice  particu- 


378  RELATIVE    ORDER    OF 

larly  the  order  in  which  they  enforced  the  divine  pre- 
cepts. Upon  their  adult,  penitent  hearers,  they  enjoin- 
ed, first  repentance,  then  baptism,  then  the  duty  of 
Church  fellov^^ship,  then  '  breaking  of  bread,'  or  the 
Lord's  Supper.  Comparing  the  order  here  observed 
with  the  order  of  the  words  of  their  original  commis- 
sion, we  are  struck  with  admiration  at  the  prompt 
fidelity  of  the  apostles. 

Acts  viii.  12  :  '  When  the  Samaritans  believed  Philip, 
they  were  baptized,  both  men  and  women.' 

Verse  13  :   Simon  believed  and  was  baptized. 

Verses  36-38 :  The  eunuch  was  baptized  immediately 
after  professing  faith  in  Christ. 

Acts  ix.  18  :  Saul  received  his  sight,  and  arose  and 
was  baptized.  Although  Saul  was  evidently  weak 
through  long  fasting,  as  appears  from  the  next  verse, 
still  he  was  baptized  before  he  took  meat.  It  is  worthy 
of  notice  that  Paul,  in  rehearsing  the  matter  afterward 
before  a  large  and  tumultuous  concourse  of  Jews,  repre- 
sents Ananias  as  chiding  a  little  delay  in  coming  to  bap- 
tism, after  his  conversion  ;  '  and  now,  ivhy  tarriest  thou  ? 
Arise  and  be  baptized.' 

Acts  X.  47,'  48  :  After  the  Holy  Spirit  had  descended 
upon  Cornelius  and  his  household,  Peter  '  commanded 
them  to  be  baptized  '  on  the  spot. 

Acts  xvi.  14,  15  :  '  The  Lord  opened  Lydia's  heart 
that  she  attended  unto  the  things  which  were  spoken 
by  Paul,  and  when  she  was  baptized,  she  besought 
us,'  &c. 

Verse  33  :  When  the  jailor  believed,  '  he  was  bap- 
tized, he  and  all  his  straightway.^ 

Acts  xviii.  8  :  '  And  many  of  the  Corinthians  hear- 
ing, believed,  and  were  baptized.' 


379 


The  above  quotations  need  no  comment  to  make  them 
plainer  in  their  teaching,  respecting  the  relative  order  of 
baptism.  They  bear  an  unequivocal  testimony  to  the 
point,  that  baptism  was  commanded  and  administered 
as  the  right  act  of  religious  duty  after  conversion.  This 
was  apostolic  practice  ;  and  if  we  suppose  them  not  to 
have  transcended,  nor  to  have  fallen  short  of  the  in- 
structions of  Christ,  and  the  powers  of  their  commis- 
sion, but,  on  the  contrary,  to  have  acted  upon  divine 
authority  in  all  those  important  matters  which  relate  to 
the  administration  and  order  of  the  Christian  institutes, 
we  must  admit  the  authority  of  their  practice  to  be 
valid  ground  of  action  for  us,  and  that,  to  depart  from 
their  practice,  is,  to  say  the  least,  a  doubtful  and  dan- 
gerous policy.  It  will  not  be  doubted  that  what  the 
apostles  enjoined  upon  their  converts  is  equally  binding 
upon  the  disciples  of  Jesus  in  all  ages.  Peter  com- 
mands Cornelius  to  be  baptized  ;  and  this  command, 
originally  addressed  to  the  centurion,  is  admitted,  under 
all  similar  circumstances,  to  have  the  same  authority 
over  us  that  it  had  over  the  faith  and  practice  of  the 
Roman.  On  this  ground  we  shall  have  no  controversy 
with  any  person  who  admits  the  obligation  of  external 
ordinances." 

So  I  think.  But  when  a  man  says  there  is  no  ohliga- 
Hon  to  he  baptized  before  admission  to  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per, there  will  be  a  question  not  only  between  him  and 
Baptists,  but  between  him  and  every  orthodox  Pedo- 
baptist. 

"  But  why  may  we  not  suppose,  also,  that  the  same 
order  of  duty  is  now  binding  on  every  adult  candidate 
for  baptism  ?     Is  not  baptism  binding  upon  us,  as  the 


380  RELATIVE    ORDER    OF 

next  duty  in  order  after  conversion,  as  much  as  it  was 
upon  Cornelius,  or  the  converts  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  ? 
Suppose  Cornelius  had  withstood  Peter  on  the  question 
of  the  order  of  baptism  ?  Suppose  he  had  desired  Peter 
to  defer  baptism  till  after  he  had  communed  at  the 
Lord's  table,  or  to  some  indefinite  period  ?  Would  he 
not,  in  this  instance,  have  arrayed  himself  against  a 
positive  command  of  G-od  ?" 

Certainly  he  ivould  ;  but  according  to  the  theory  of 
Mr.  Coulling,  he  would  not.  According  to  this  theory, 
Cornelius  might  with  propriety  have  said,  when  Peter 
commanded  him  to  be  baptized — "  Stop  !  I  will  com- 
mune first :  the  order  in  which  Grod  has  enjoined  these 
ordinances  is  not  to  govern  7ne  ;  I  will  take  them  in  any 
order  I  pleased     Again,  to  Mr.  Hibbard  : 

*'  The  command  was,  to  be  baptized.  This  was  en- 
joined as  the  next  act  of  religious  duty  after  conversion. 
The  time  and  relative  order  of  the  institution  were 
points  of  palpable  and  direct  obligation,  as  well  as  the 
ordinance  itself  in  the  abstract ;  and  to  invert  this  order, 
or  defer  baptism,  would  have  been  to  oppose  the  divine 
arrangement The  argument  from  apostolic  pre- 
cedent we    consider   fairly  deduced,   and  of  sufficient 

authority  to  decide  this  controversy Herein  their 

practice  was  the  same  in  all  countries,  among  all  nations 
and  classes  of  men,  in  all  climates,  and  at  all  times. 
So  universal  a  practice  can  be  regarded  in  no  other  light 
than  as  forming  an  apostolic  precedent,  and  if  so,  it  fur- 
nishes an  authoritative  rule  of  faith  and  practice  to  the 
Christian  Church  in  all  ages  of  the  w^orld." 

One  point,  I  think,  is  established  ;  that  is,  that  bap- 
tism is  the  first  act  of  obedience  required  at  the  hands 


3S1 


of  the  believer.  It  is  the  ordinance  instituted  by  divine 
authority  by  which  we  publicly  profess  our  allegiance  to 
the  King  in  Zion.  It  stands  at  the  threshold  of  the 
Christian  Church.  It  is  the  initiative  ordinance  into 
that  Church.  An  unbaptized  person  cannot  be  a  mein- 
ber  of  a  Christian  Church.  Then  it  follows  as  a  natural 
deduction,  the  Lord's  Supper  being  a  Church  ordinance, 
being  a  social  ordinance  to  be  partaken  of  by  the  Church 
of  Jesus  Christy  as  a  Churchy  that  none  but  those  who 
are  members  of  the  Church  have  a  right  to  partake  of  it. 
None  but  those  ivho  are  members  of  a  Church  have  a 
right  to  partake  of  the  Lord''s  Supper,  and  none  can  be 
members  of  the  Church  ivithout  baptism.  Are  not  these 
fair  deductions  from  the  arguments  presented,  and  from 
the  evidence  from  the  word  of  God  ?  We  read  that 
"  on  the  first  day  of  the  week  the  disciples  came  to- 
gether to  break  bread."  Who  were  the  disciples  ?  My 
brother,  when  commenting  upon  the  commission,  verged 
very  closely  upon  the  idea,  that  the  apostles  w(?i-e  to 
make  disciples  of  all  nations  by  baptizing  them ;  that 
baptizing  and  discipling  were  about  the  same  ;  that 
they  were  to  make  disciples  by  teaching  and  by  baptiz- 
ing. The  disciples,  then,  even  according  to  his  theory, 
were  those  who  were  baptized.  The  exercise  of  faith 
in  Jesus  Christ  is  produced  by  the  operation  of  the 
Spirit  of  <3-od  upon  the  heart.  Our  spiritual  union  with 
him,  and  our  entrance  into  the  spiritual  Kingdom,  are  by 
spiritual  regeneration.  Our  union  with  the  Church  is 
by  a  visible  act.  That  act  is  baptism.  "We  become  dis- 
ciples  in  our  hearts  by  the  operation  of  the  spirit  of  Grod 
upon  those  hearts.  We  become  disciples  in  a  public, 
visible  manner,  by  publicly  and  visibly  acknowledging 


382  RELATIVE    ORDER    OF 

allegiance  to  his  authority  ;  and  the  mode  of  doing  that 
is  baptism.  This  whole  matter  is  settled  by  Divine  au- 
thority.    From  this  decision  there  can  be  no  appeal. 

Some  have  supposed  it  an  uphill  business  to  establish 
our  views  upon  communion.  Bat  it  is  an  easy  matter. 
They  are  as  clear  as  plain,  logical  arguments,  and  the  teach- 
ings of  the  word  of  God  can  make  them.  I  am  sure  I  will 
not  be  considered  arrogant  and  presumptive  for  making 
this  declaration,  for  I  declare  what  nearly  all  Christians 
in  all  ages  of  the  world  have  declared.  I  must  have  a 
charity  unbounded  indeed,  if  I  could  so  far  compromise 
principle  as  to  agree  with  Mr.  CouUing's  views, 
in  opposition  to  all  the  Christian  world  besides. 
Upon  this  ground  I  stand  to-day,  not  simply  as  the 
defender  of  the  views  of  the  Baptist  Chm'ch.  I  stand 
upon  broad  ground.,  defending  the  correctness  of  the 
views  and  doctrines  and  usages  of  all  orthodox  Chris- 
tians in  our  land^  and  in  all  other  lands.  If  there 
be  a  Jew  who  choose  to  depart  from  the  views  enter- 
tained by  their  own  denominations,  and  set  themselves 
up  as  leaders,  and  guides,  and  teachers  in  Israel — teach- 
ing contrary  to  all  that  the  word  of  God  teaches,  and 
all  that  men  of  different  persuasions  teach,  I  glory  that 
I  can  stand  up  against  them  in  defence  of  all  those  who 
hold  that  you  must  observe  the  ordinances  of  the  gospel 
in  the  order  in  which  they  are  enjoined  by  him  ivho  can- 
not err. 


MR.  COULLING'S  SECOND  ADDRESS. 

Mr.  CouLLiNG :  I  have  half  an  hour  allotted  to  me, 
in  which  to  review  what  has  been  said  upon  this  subject. 
My  good  brother  seemed   to  think   that  an  individual 


THE  lord's  supper.  383 

coming  into  this  congregation,  not  understanding  the 
proposition  announced,  would  never  in  the  world  have 
supposed  that  I  was  on  the  affirmative  of  the  question. 
"Why  he  thinks  so,  I  suppose,  is  because  I  had  not  time 
to  get  through  my  argument.  There  are  more  ways  of 
arguing  a  question  than  one.  A  man  may  state  argu- 
ments directly  to  the  point ;  or,  if  he  choose,  he  may  go 
on  and  state  objections  to  the  point  against  which  he  is 
arguing,  or  go  on  in  favor  of  the  position  he  seeks  to 
sustain.  That  is  precisely  what  I  was  trying  to  do. 
He  does  me  the  justice  to  say  that  my  position,  while  it 
is  formally  affirmative,  is  a  really  negative  position  ; 
and  my  mode  of  argument  was  adapted  to  the  nature 
of  the  position  that  i  occupied :  in  form,  affirmative  ; 
really,  in  its  nature,  negative.  The  true  affirmative  is 
that  baptism  is  a  prerequisite  to  communion.  The  gen- 
tleman complained  that  I  avoided  the  issue.  I  am  sorry 
that  we  differ  so  widely  in  our  notions  about  logic,  and 
about  the  mode  of  reasoning.  I  have  given  some  little 
attention  to  the  subject,  and  I  am  following  the  best 
lights  that  I  have.  Bat  if  I  ever  avoided  an  issue,  I 
assure  you  I  do  not  know  it.  And  if  I  have  avoided 
meeting,  squarely  and  fully,  any  issue  that  has  been 
raised  here,  it  has  been  in  an  unfortunate  moment,  when 
my  mind  was,  and  still  is,  utterly  oblivious  of  any  such 
course. 

He  thinks  that,  instead  of  trying  to  prove  that  bap- 
tism is  not  a  prerequisite  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  I  am 
urging  that  rebaptism  is  non-essential.  Now,  what  is 
the  proposition  ?  That  no  one,  except  a  person  baptized, 
has  a  right  to  partake  of  the  Lord's  Supper :  that  is  his 
proposition.     My  proposition  is,  that  baptism  is  not  a 


3S4 


RELATIVE    ORDER    OF 


prerequisite.  He  says,  that  a  person  unbaptized  has 
not  a  scriptural  right  to  the  Lord's  supper.  Therefore  I 
have  gone  to  the  Scriptures.  I  want  to  see  where  in  the 
Scriptures  he  can  find  authority  to  exclude  a  man  from 
the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  table.  I  took  you  to  the 
commission.  I  found  a  commission  given  to  baptize 
people  after  the  Lord's  Supper  was  introduced.  Li  an- 
swer to  that  point,  what  does  he  say  ?  That  Christianity 
was  progressive,  and  that  the  blessed  Saviour  gave  in- 
struction to  the  disciples  just  as  they  were  prepared  to 
hear  it.  Now  I  leave  it  to  you,  if  Jesus  Christ  did  not 
instruct  his  disciples  to  take  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's 
Supper,  before  he  even  gave  them  a  word  of  instruction 
in  reference  to  Christian  baptism?  Then,  if  he  is  to 
follow  his  Lord,  and  that  is  to  be  his  criterion,  and  Jesus 
Christ  understood  what  he  was  about,  and  gave  instruc- 
tion progressively,  and  the  Church  is  progressive,  accord- 
ing to  that,  ought  he  not  to  give  the  sacrament  first? 
Then  he  states,  that  perhaps  I  made  a  little  blunder  a 
day  or  two  ago,  in  quoting  from  Matthew,  in  reference 
to  the  existence  of  the  Church,  and  thus  I  had  cut  the 
throat  of  my  own  argument.  What  did  I  argue  ?  That 
Jesus  Christ  said  to  his  disciples,  if  your  brother  trespass 
against  you,  go  and  tell  it  to  the  Church,  recognizing 
the  existence  of  the  Church  at  that  time ;  and  the  tense 
of  the  verb  employed  showed  that  it  was  an  immediate 
duty  enjoined  upon  them.  But,  says  he,  Matthew  did 
not  write  his  gospel  until  a  long  time  afterwards.  And 
then,  as  if  he  had  thought,  just  in  time  to  save  himself, 
he  said,  the  Lord  was  there,  and  they  had  no  need  of 
the  Church  to  go  to  ;  and  if  our  Lord  was  with  us,  we 
w^ould  not  have   any  need  to   go  to  the  Church  now. 


THE 


385 


Is  he  wiser  than  the  Lord  ?  The  Lord  told  them  to 
go  to  the  Church,  and  he  was  present  with  them,  right 
there. 

The  gentleman  affirms  that  the  sacrament  was  a 
preparative  act.  What  he  means  by  that  he  will  have 
an  opportunity  to  explain  when  he  answers  me.  I  con- 
fess that  I  cannot  eliminate  any  idea  from  the  expres- 
sion, that  the  sacrament  was  a  preparative  act,  why  it 
was  a  commemorative  act ;  it  is  a  sacramental  act.  For 
what  did  it  prepare  ?  Is  there  anything  in  the  book 
about  it  anywhere,  saying  it  was  preparatory  ?  And,  sup- 
pose I  admit  it,  what  does  he  gain  by  it  ?  Anything  at 
all  ?  Does  it  come  in  conflict  with  anything  I  have 
said  ?  Does  it  meet  a  single  issue  I  have  made  ?  Not 
one,  that  I  can  conceive  of — not  a  single  one. 

He  does  not  intend  to  impugn  the  motives  of  any  of 
his  Pedobaptist  brethren.  He  believes  that  they  were 
baptized.  He  gives  them  credit  for  being  honest  in 
believing  that  they  were  baptized.  He  does  not  impugn 
our  motives  ;  we  are  all  right ;  have  all  been  baptized  ; 
no  doubt  about  that.  He  concedes  the  fact,  that  we 
have  been  baptized.  Upon  his  own  hypothesis  :  suppose 
baptism  is  a  prerequisite  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  he 
concedes  that  honestly  we  have  been  baptized,  how  can 
he  exclude  us  ? 

Mr.  Massey  :  I  admitted  that  I  supposed  you^  that  is, 
Pedobaptists,  believed  you  had  been  baptized  ;  but  I  did 
not  say  I  thought  so. 

Mr.  CouLLiNG  :  That  is  all  I  want ;  that  is  precisely 
what  I  think  I  have  just  stated.  He  believes  that  I 
believe  conscientiously  that  I  have  been  baptized.  That 
is  the  very  gist  and   point  of    the  whole  controversy 

17 


386 


RELATIVE    ORDER    OF 


right  there.  I  arn  a  Christian  man.  Dr.  Fuller  says 
so,  and  the  gentleman  admits  it.  I  venture  the  asser- 
tion, that  whatever  a  few  may  say,  the  majority  of  im- 
mersionists  will,  with  one  accord,  say  that  their  Pedo- 
baptist  brethren  are  Christians.  Honest,  are  they  ?  If 
they  are  Christians,  they  are  honest.  They  think  them 
intelligent,  do  they  not  ?  They  must  accord  them  some 
intelligence.  1  should  think  that  my  brother  thought 
that  when  Pedobaptists  died,  wisdom  w^ould  die,  too,  from 
the  implicit  confidence  he  seems  to  place  in  their  writings. 
They  are  intelligent  men  ;  they  have  as  much  intelli- 
gence as  any  other  class  of  men.  They  are  as  remark- 
able for  close,  candid  investigation  as  any  other  men. 
And  now  here  are  two  men,  and  I  admit  the  two 
men  to  be  equal  in  every  respect,  morally  and  intellect- 
ually, and  equal  in  education.  An  issue  comes  up.  Now 
which  of  these  two  men  has  been  baptized  ?  As  a 
Pedobaptist  I  will  say,  "  I  will  not  decide  the  question." 
Pedobaptists  universally  say  that.  We  have  no  right  to 
take  the  place  of  Pope  Pius  IX.,  and  fulminate  a  bull 
against  you  because  you  differ  from  us.  I  accord  to  you 
sincerity  and  honesty,  and  I  will  give  you  the  right- 
hand  of  fellowship,  and  will  recognize  you  as  Christians 
under  all  circumstances  whatever.  "Why  ?  Because  I 
believe  you  are  honest.  There  is  the  gist  of  the  con- 
troversy ;  there  is  the  very  point.  But  what  do  close 
communionists  say  ?  You  do  not  agree  with  us  ;  we 
do  not  believe  you  are  right.  We  admit  that  you  are 
honest.  But,  then,  I  have  no  authority  ;  it  is  my  Lord's 
table,  and  he  has  fenced  it  about,  and  I  have  no  author- 
ity to  let  you  come  in.  Who  gave  you  authority  to  de- 
cide  this  question   between    me   and   my    G-od  ?     Who 


THE  lord's  supper.  387 

asked  ycu  to  do  it  ?  I  will  admit  that  he  and  every 
Church  has  a  right  to  raise  the  standard,  and  exclude 
from  the  Church  everything  that  is  immoral.  But  when 
you  come  to  sit  in  judgment  upon  my  conscientious  con- 
victions, we  deny  your  authority.  Here  is  a  question 
that  has  been  debated  throughout  the  ienojth  and  breadth 
of  the  countr}^,  upon  which  some  of  the  best  men  in  the 
world  differ.  And  for  one  denomination  to  assume  the 
prerogative  of  excluding  every  other  denomination  from 
the  Lord's  table,  and,  I  think,  thereby  from  the  Church 
of  G-od,  is  assuming  a  position  which  has  no  warrant  in 
the  Bible,  or  reason,  or  from  any  source.  There  is 
the  issue  ;  there  is  the  point ;  keep  that  in  mind.  I 
will  meet  some  other  points,  presently ;  but  just  keep 
that  in  mind.  Let  my  brother  come  up  and  tell  you 
how,  as  a  close]  communionist,  he  can  say  to  you,  "  you 
shall  not  come  to  this  communion !"  Vv^hy  !  he  calls 
me  brother.  "  I  hope  to  meet  him  in  heaven,"  says  he  ; 
"  I  hope  that,  peradventure,  God  will  pardon  him  his 
faults  and  mistakes."  And  yet  he  goes  into  his  Church, 
and  draws  the  line  around  the  sacramental  table,  and 
says  to  all  the  world,  "  None  but  those  of  you  who  have 
been  immersed  have  a  right  to  partake  of  the  Lord's 
Supper."  There  is  the  issue  ;  there  is  the  point ;  the 
only  point  in  this  whole  subject  of  close  communion. 
I  stated,  and  he  has  not  met  the  statement,  that  there 
was  no  authority  in  the  Word  of  God  for  a  Church  to 
do  that ;  not  a  particle.  Suppose  that  I  was  to  admit 
some  sort  of  baptism  was  prerequisite  to  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per. Is  that  authority  to  him  to  decide  what  sort  of 
baptism  it  shall  be  ?  Does  the  one  admission  necessa- 
rily involve  the  other  ?     Can  it  do  it  ?     Is  it  possible 


388  RELATIVE    ORDER    OF 

that  it  should  do  it  ?  Is  it  not  utterly  absurd  to  sup- 
pose that  it  would  do  it  ?  Utterly  so.  Talk  ahout  all 
Pedobaptists  agreeing  !  We  will  come  to  that  presently. 
Let  me  follow  my  notes  as  far  as  I  can. 

He  objects  to  some  rules  that  I  laid  down.  I  could 
not,  at  the  time  he  made  the  objection,  recall  any :  I 
cannot  now.  And  I  will  be  obliged  to  him  to  make  a 
note  right  there ;  and  when  he  gets  up  to  speak  again, 
to  let  me  know  what  rules  they  were  that  I  laid  down, 
for  I  am  utterly  at  a  loss  to  conceive  what  they  were. 
He  then  goes  on  with  sundry  propositions  in  the  argu- 
ment in  chief,  to  support  what  ?  To  support  the  propo- 
sition, that  he  has  a  right  to  exclude  a  man  who  differs 
from  him  upon  the  subject  of  baptism,  from  the  Lord's 
table  ?  No,  What  then  ?  To  support  the  position  that 
baptism  is  essential  to  the  communion,  and  that^  right 
in  the  face  of  the  plain,  palpable  declaration  of  G-od  to 
the  contrary.  His  first  position  is,  that  some  acknowl- 
edgment must  be  made  to  the  government.  Well,  I 
can  admit  that,  and  yet  I  cannot  admit  the  other.  Pray 
tell  me,  did  not  the  disciples  make  some  acknowledg- 
ment to  the  government  of  Christ  ? — and  the  five  hun- 
dred brethren  also  ?  And  yet  they  never  were  baptized  ; 
certainly  never  received  Christian  baptism.  Dr.  Hall 
says  that  is  demonstrable,  and  I  think  I  have  demon- 
strated it  two  or  three  times,  so  plainly  that  nobody  can 
fail  to  see  it,  and  everybody  must  feel  its  force.  John's 
baptism.  Christian  baptism  ?  No,  ho  would  not  take 
that  position  ;  though,  afterwards,  he  threw  in  a  sort  of 
insinuation  that  way,  and  quoted  from  Acts,  and  seemed 
to  say  that  the  disciples  had  been  baptized  by  John's 
baptism,  and  therefore  they  had  a  right  to  commune  at 


389 


the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Sapper.  He  did  not  come 
right  out,  holdly,  and  say  that ;  but  that  was  the  im- 
pression he  sought  to  make.  Suppose  I  admit  it ;  is  it 
Christian  baptism  ?  No ;  and  the  controversy  is  in  ref- 
erence to  Christian  baptism.  The  disciples  took  the  sac- 
rament long  before ;  forty  days  before  Christ  instituted 
baptism,  and  he  cannot  get  over  it  to  save  his  life.  And 
if  it  be  progressive,  as  he  says,  and  the  Saviour  knew 
what  first  to  institute,  the  Saviour  introduced  the  Lord's 
Supper  before  baptism.  That  is  true  ;  the  Bible  proves 
that ;  and  no  form  of  logic  can  prove  the  contrary,  with- 
out denying  what  the  Bible  positively  says. 

The  next  argument  is,  that  this  acknowledgment 
must  be  such  as  the  government  shall  prescribe.  Sup- 
pose I  admit  that.  It  i&  only  admitting  a  plain,  simple 
truism,  that  nobody  at  all  will  deny.  And  it  does  not 
reach  the  point  he  is  seeking  to  reach,  that  the  prescrib- 
ing power  has  laid  down  immersion,  and  immersion 
only  ;  and  therefore,  those  who  have  not  been  immersed 
have  not  the  right  to  commune ;  thereby  assuming  a 
prerogative  to  decide  the  question  over  the  heads  of 
others  quite  as  intelligent,  and  obedient,  and  competent 
to  decide,  as  himself.  That  is  coming  up  to  the  other  point- 
Again,  he  goes  on  to  say  that  the  Lord's  Supper  is  a 
social  ordinance  ;  baptism  is  an  individual  ordinance. 
And  the  riext  proposition  he  links  on  to  that  is,  that  we 
ought  to  be  very  particular  what  sort  of  society  we  take 
it  in.  And  I  do  not  doubt  that  a  sinsfle  moment.  But 
if  he  intended  to  make  the  impression  that  we  Metho- 
dists, Presbyterians,  or  Episcopalians,  were  not  particu- 
lar, he  just  made  a  slight  mistake;  that  is  all.  They 
«av  that  we  break  down  all  barriers  around  the  table 


390  RELATIVE    ORDER    OP 

of  the  Lord,  and,  as  a  member  of  an  immersionist 
Church  told  me  some  time  ago,  that  I  invited  sinners  to 
commune  w^ith  me,  that  there  was  no  limit  at  all.  How 
do  men  hear,  who  have  ears  to  hear  ?  What  are  men 
thinking  about?  It  does  seem  to  me  that  the  question 
is  so  perfectly  plain  and  simple  that  nobody  in  the  world, 
who  will  give  himself  the  trouble  to  look  at  it  for  a  mo- 
ment, can  misunderstand  it.  I  will  state  it  to  you.  Turn 
to  the  book  of  Disciphne,  and  on  the  fourteenth  page  you 
will  find  the  order  for  the  administration  of  the  Lord's 
Supper.  After  some  passages  of  Scripture  collated  here, 
comes  the  invitation  that  the  Church  gives  to  communi- 
cants.    It  is  in  these  words : 

^'  Ye  that  do  truly  and  earnestly  repent  of  your  sins, 
and  are  in  love  and  charity  with  your  neighbors,  and 
intend  to  lead  a  new  life,  following  the  commandments 
of  Grod,  and  walking  from  henceforth  in  his  whole  ways, 
draw  near  with  faith." 

There  is  the  invitation.  We  do  not  sit  in  judgment 
upon  a  man,  and  ask  him  how  he  got  into  the  Church. 
YIq  do  not  profess  to  have  discernment  to  know  whether 
or  not  he  is  a  fit  subject,  but  we  leave  it  to  his  con- 
science to  judge  of  that  matter.  What!  stop  a  man, 
whom  I  never  saw  before,  just  as  he  was  coming  up  to 
the  altar,  and  say  to  him,  How  did  you  get  into  the 
Church?  Is  that  right  or  proper  ?  Or  say  to  that  man. 
Unless  you  believe  some  dogma  that  I  believe,  you  can- 
not commune  with  me.  And  if  you  can  put  in  baptism, 
why  not  put  in  any  other  subject  upon  the  face  of  the 
earth,  and  make  it  a  conscientious  matter  ?  And  then  say 
that  your  conscience  will  not  permit  you  to  think  as  I  do. 

The  Episcopal  Church  has,  almost  word  for  word,  the 


THE  lord's  supper.  391 

very  same  invitation  that  I  have  just  now  read.  And, 
in  conversation  with  a  member  of  that  communion,  and 
one,  I  suppose,  who  knows  all  about  it,  says,  he  very 
frequently  heard  the  minister  invite  formally  all  Chris- 
tian denominations  to  come  up  and  join  with  them. 
And  because  of  the  breadth  and  excellency  of  this  invi- 
tation some  of  them  deem  it  unnecessary  to  add  a  single 
word  to  the  invitation,  but  simply  read  it.  The  Pres- 
byterian Church  is  about  to  have  a  communion,  and 
the  minister  gets  up,  and  always,  when  I  have  had  thfe 
pleasure — and  I  have  enjoyed  it  whenever  I  could — I 
have  heard  him  invite  members  of  all  sister  denomina- 
tions to  come  and  commune  with  them ;  and  pleasant 
communion  have  I  had  with  them.  Do  they  stop  you, 
and  ask  you  if  you  have  been  baptized  ?  Certainly  not. 
I  asked  a  minister  in  Charlottesville,  the  other  day — 
knowing  that  this  very  point  would  be  discussed  here : 
"  When  you  give  an  invitation  for  persons  to  take  the 
communion  with  you,  do  you  stop  and  ask  them  if  they 
have  been  baptized  in  any  way?"  "No,"  says  he. 
Suppose  I  was  to  take  in  a  probationer  in  my  Church, 
for  instance,  the  fourth  Sunday  in  the  month.  The 
third  Sunday  may  be  the  regular  Sabbath  for  baptism ; 
the  first  Sunday  is  communion  Sunday.  That  young 
man,  or  young  girl,  just  professing  religion,  heartfull 
and  warm  with  the  faith  of  the  gospel,  would  you  go  up 
to  her  and  say,  "Have  you  been  baptized?"  No,  sir; 
I  would  not  say  a  word  about  it,  not  a  syllable.  And 
what  right  has  any  minister  of  any  denomination  to  stop 
a  member  of  another  denomination,  and  interrogate  that 
member  in  any  way  as  to  that  thing  ?  Your  conscience  t 
"What  business  has  your  conscience  with  my  acts  ?  Who 
made  you  your  brother's  keeper?     Yfill  you  tell  me? 


892  RELATIVE    ORDER    OF 

"Where  is  your  warrant,  your  authority  ?  Who  put  you 
up  to  guide  and  guard  the  purity  of  the  Church,  and 
thereby  constructively  reflect  upon  the  intelligence  and 
purity  of  every  branch  of  the  Christian  Church  ?  There 
is  the  point,  and  there  is  the  issue  right  there. 

A  long  chapter  was  read  from  my  Brother  Hib- 
bard  ;  and,  of  course,  as  it  is  always  supposed,  on  the 
introduction  of  a  Pedobaptist  authority,  I  am  to  take  as 
law  and  gospel  everything  that  a  Pedobaptist  writes.  I 
cannot  introduce,  he  thinks.  Baptist  authority,  and  hold 
him  responsible  for  that,  because  they  w^ere  Baptists, 
because  there  is  a  split  in  the  Church  upon  that  question. 
Well,  I  did  not  know  that  before,  and  I  am  very  glad  to 
hear  it.  I  am  glad  there  are  some  that  begin  to  see 
things  in  their  right  light ;  and  I  hope  to  see  the  day 
when  many  more  will  join  them.  I  have  no  doubt  they 
will.  That  information  encourages  me  very  much,  in- 
deed. I  knew  a  great  many  did  not  like  it.  T  suppose 
I  have  been  told  by  five  hundred,  since  I  have  been  in 
the  ministry,  "  Oh !  I  so  much  dislike  the  close  commu- 
nion in  my  Church."  J  do  not  know  how  it  is  here. 
But  1  have  not  taken  a  round  in  my  district — not  once 
since  I  have  been  on  the  district — that  I  did  not  admin- 
ister the  ordinance  of  the  Lord's  Supper  to  Baptists.  And 
I  never  go  around,  but  what  some  go  away  from  the 
Church,  regretting  that  they  cannot  participate  with  us. 
But  there  is  a  split  among  them,  so  that  the  truth  is 
progressing.  I  do  not  know  how  such  men  as  Robert 
Hall,  Baptist  Noel,  and  Spurgeon,  and  I  do  not  know 
how  many  others,  can  write  as  they  do  without  having 
some  effect.  The  truth  will  have  some  effect.  But 
what  I  was  going  to  say  was  this :  I  do  not  hold  my 


3Q3 


good  brother  responsible  for  what  Mr.  Hall  says,  for 
anythmg  that  Mr.  "Whitney  says ;  not  at  all.  He  did 
not  write  it :  if  he  had  written  it,  or  said  it  here,  I 
would  have  held  him  responsible  for  it,  as  I  do  for  what 
he  says  baptism  is,  and  what  baptism  means.  I  hold 
him  responsible  for  that. 


MR.  MASSEY'S   SECOND  EEPLY. 

Mr.  Massey  :  I  am  afraid  that  I  shall  not  be  allowed 
to  ascertain  that  the  gentleman  who  last  addressed  you 
is  upon  the  affirmative  of  the  pro']30sition.  He  assigned 
as  a  reason  for  my  not  having  ascertained  it  before,  that 
he  had  not  "  gotten"  through  with  his  argument.  He 
has  now  spent  an  hour  and  three  quarters,  having  only  a 
h^lf  an  hour  left,  and  has  not  yet  got  to  his  point.  I 
must  wait  till  he  does  get  there  before  I  can  reply  to 
him. 

He  says  he  wants  Scriptural  authority  for  excludins; 
persons  from  the  Lord's  Supper.  He  must  find  author- 
ity to  invite  ih.Qm  there.  The  Lord's  Supper  is  a  ^ose- 
tive  institution  ;  instituted  by  Jesus  Christ,  the  great 
Master  of  assemblies.  He  has  given  permission  to  cer- 
tain individuals,  or  to  individuals  of  a  certain  character, 
to  receive  it,  and  has  prescribed  the  manner  in  which 
they  shall  approach  the  Lord's  table.  Upon  this  sub- 
ject I  am  prepared  to  go  with  him  in  search  of  informa- 
tion. He  ao-ain  referred  to  Matthew  xviii..  and  slated 
that  I  said,  upon  this  point,  he  had  cut  the  throat  of  his 
argument.  Yom  will  bear  in  mind  that  I  eaid  in  refer- 
erence  to  his  hypothesis,  that  "  baptism  had  taken  the 
place  of  circumcision  ;  that  he  had  cut  the  throat  of  his 

17^ 


394  RELATIVE    ORDER    OF 

argument  in  support  of  infant  baptism."  He  has  not 
undertaken  to  heal  it,  and  I  will  not  undertake  it  for 
him. 

He  admits  so  much  that  I  have  said,  and  has  left  my 
address  so  untouched,  that  I  am  very  forcibly  reminded 
of  an  event  recorded  in  the  life  of  Henry  Clay.  He  v^as 
once,  when  a  candidate  for  Congress,  canvassing  with 
his  opponent  in  a  certain  district.  Some  old  Kentuckian 
said  he  could  not  support  him,  unless  he  proved  him- 
self a  good  marksman  with  a  rifle.  Mr.  Clay  found 
himself  in  a  dilemma,  for  he  had  never  practised  with  a 
rifle  much.  But  with  the  readiness  that  always  charac- 
terized him,  he  showed  no  hesitation,  but  look  up  the 
rifle  and  fired,  hitting  the  target  precisely  in  the  centre. 
His  opponent  cried  out,  "  That  was  a  chance  shot,  and 
Mr.  Clay  must  fire  again — he  would  not  undertake  to 
fire  against  that  shot."  But  Mr.  Clay  said,  "No,  sir; 
I  will  wait  until  you  beat  that^  and  then  I  will  try 
again."  And  when  the  gentleman  shakes  any  part  of 
my  superstructure,  or  any  part  of  the  foundation  on 
wdiich  it  is  built,  I  will  show  him  that  I  can  lay  and 
erect  them  again.  He  admits  that  every  Church  ha^  a 
right  to  raise  a  standard  of  admission — 

Mr.  CouLLmo  :  Let  me  correct  that.  I  said  that  every 
Church  had  a  right  to  prevent  immoral  persons  from 
entering  it ;  immoral  persons.  But  the  Bible  gave  no 
right  where,  honest  diflerences  of  opinion  accrued,  for 
one  to  exclude  the  other. 

Mr.  Massey  :  The  gentleman  would  have  been  saved 
the  necessity  of  explaining,  if  he  had  waited.  He  said 
that  the  Church  had  a  right  to  raise  a  standard,  and 
then  stated  what  he  meant  by  a  standard.     I  was  going 


m 


395 


to  state  that  as  he  did.  Here  is  an  acknowledgment  of 
the  principle  that  there  must  be  some  test  by  which 
you  shall  determine  a  man's  right  to  receive  the  sacra- 
ment of  the  Lord's  Supper.  I  take  issue  with  him  upon 
the  point,  that  a  Church  has  a  right  to  raise  a  standard. 
I  say,  the  Head  of  the  Church — the  Divine  Lawgiver 
only  has  a  right  to  do  that.  I  claim,  as  well  as  he  does, 
that  all  immorality  and  wickedness  are  excluded  ;  but 
that  does  not  cover  all.  There  may  be  moral  men,  against 
whose  morality  you  cannot  say  a  word,  who  should  be 
excluded  ;  but,  if  men  establish  a  standard,  how  far  will 
they  go  ?  One  will  have  one  standard,  another  will  have 
another,  and  a  third  party  will  have  a  third  standard. 
Our  duty  is  to  ascertain  what  standard  the  Greed  Mas- 
ter of  assemblies  has  erected,  and  to  conform  to  that. 
I  have  shov/n  you  that  he  has  made  baptism  the  act  by 
which  we  acknowledge  our  allegiance  to  him  in  a  pub- 
lic manner  before  the  world.  And  now  just  see  how  the 
gentleman  has  changed  the  issue.  I  pity  him  ;  he  is  be- 
tween two  difficulties.  If  he  admits  baptism  to  be  a  pre- 
requisite to  the  Lord's  Supper,  I  have  him  upon  this  pro- 
position. And  having  taken  the  position  that  baptism  is 
not  a  prerequisite  to  it,  he  feels  it  is  rather  •'  a  hard  road 
to  travel^'''  to  run  in  conflict  w^ith  all  the  standards  of 
his  oivn  denomination  and  of  all  other  denominations. 
Hence  he  brings  up  the  question  as  to  whether  immer- 
sion must  precede  the  ordinance  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 
I  tell  that  gentleman,  that  if  he  is  disposed  to  meet  me 
and  discuss  the  mode  of  baptism  again,  so  that  it  can 
be  taken  down  by  the  reporter  with  the  residue  of  this 
discussion,  "  here  is  at  him  until  moryiing^^  I  will  go 
with  him  at  any  time^  and  to  any  place.,  to  discuss  that 


396  RELATIVE    ORDER    OF 

again.  But  here  is  another  question  before  us.  If  he 
thinks,  as  he  very  likely  does,  that  I  have  demonstrated 
that  immersion  is  the  only  apostolic  baptism^  he  may 
feel  some  reluctance  to  trying  it  again. 

But  the  question  here  is,  not  what  is  baptism ;  or 
that  whether  sprinkling,  pouring,  or  immersion,  is  bap- 
tism ;  but  the  simple,  bare,  naked  question,  whether 
baptism^  according  to  his  views  of  it,  or  anybodifs  views 
of  it,  is  a  prerequisite  to  the  Lord's  Supper.  He  says, 
suppose  he  was  to  admit  that  some  sort  of  baptism  was 
necessary  ;  and  then,  seeing  that  that  would  be  fatal 
to  his  cause,  he  dodges  ofT,  and  will  not  admit  even 
that.  He  is  very  eloquent  upon  the  invitations  of 
Presbyterians,  Episcopalians,  and  Methodists,  to  other 
sister  Churches,  and  to  members  of  all  Christian 
Churches,  to  partake  with  them  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 
And  he  says,  "  As  they  come  up,  would  you  go  up  to 
them  and  ask  them  if  they  had  been  baptized  ?"  Why, 
no  I  What  is  the  fair  presumption  ?  Does  not  every 
man  know  that  when  you  invite  members  of  other 
Churches,  you  invite  those  whom  you  suppose  to  have 
been  baptized  ?  How  do  men  get  into  the  Methodist 
Church  ?  Upon  page  110  of  the  Discipline,  you  find 
this  :  (My  copy  of  the  Discipline  was  printed  at  the 
"  Southern  Methodist  Publishing  House,  Nashville, 
Tenn.,  1859.") 

^^ Let  none  be  received  into  the  Churchy  until  they 
are  recommended  by  a  leader  ivith  ivhom  they  have 
met  at  least  six  months  on  trial,  and  have  been  bap- 
tized:' 

Now,  when  Presbyterians  and  Episcopalians  invite 
Methodists  to  commune  with  them,  do  they  not  act  upon 


397 

the  jiresumption  that  they  have  been  baptized?  And  if 
they  have  not  been,  they  falsify  their  Discipline,  and 
practise  an  imposition  upon  all  other  Churches. 

I  cannot  account  for  the  brother's  not  having  heard 
that  there  was  a  difference  among  Baptists  upon  the 
subject  of  communion.  I  really  should  never  have 
charged  him  with  the  ivani  of  that  information,  if  he 
had  not  himself  avoioed  ic.  I  should  never  have  charged 
him  with  never  having  heard  of  that  "to  this  day" — 
never  having  heard  that  Robert  Hall  laas  an  open-com- 
munion Baptist!  or,  that  there  were  two  distinct  organ- 
izations among  Baptists.  I  wonder,  therefore,  that  he 
was  able  to  trace  the  succession  along  so  well ;  to  talk 
so  smoothly  about  "Baptist  Noel,"  and  "SpurgeonI" 
How  did  he  becojue  so  familiar  ivith  their  writings,  if 
he  knew  nothing  about  it  to  this  day  ?  Wonderful !  I ! 
That  is  all  of  his  last  speech  that  requires  notice. 

Now  Paul,  in  writing  to  the  1  Corinthians  xi.  IS, 
says  to  them,  when  speaking  about  a  participation  in 
this  ordinance :  "  When  ye  come  together  in  the  Church." 
And  then  he  gives  them  directions  how  to  act.  How  do 
\YQ  get  into  the  Church?  The '"' Methodist  Discipline"  says, 
they  must  be  baptized  first.  Then  here  is  a  recognition 
of  the  very  truth  for  which  I  contend,  and  the  very  fact 
which  he  denies.  Paul  goes  on  to  give  directions,  and 
says : 

"For  I  have  received  of  the  Lord  that  which  also  I 
delivered  unto  you.  That  the  Lord  Jesus,  the  same 
night  in  which  he  was  betrayed,  took  bread  ;  and  when  he 
had  given  thanks,  he  brake  it,  and  said.  Take,  eat ;  this 
is  my  body,  which  is  broken  for  you ;  this  do  in  remem- 
brance of  me.     After  the  same  manner  also  he  took  the 


398  RELATIVE    ORDER    OF 

cup,  when  he  had  supped,  saying,  This  cup  is  the  new 
testament  in  my  blood  :  this  do  ye  as  oft  as  ye  drink  of 
it,  in  remembrance  of  me.  For  as  often  as  ye  eat  this 
bread,  and  drink  this  cup,  ye  do  shew  the  Lord's  death 
till  he  come." 

Now  here  are  directions  given  to  those  who  shall 
"  come  tosrether  in  the  Church.'^^  And  in  order  for  them 
to  get  into  the  Church,  the  Methodist  Discipline  says, 
they  must  be  baptized.  Then  the  proper  conclusion  is, 
that  no  ?^?2baptized  person  has  a  right  to  partake  of 
the  Lord's  Supper — the  Church  ordinance.  You  cannot 
carry  the  ordinance  of  the  Church  out  of  the  Church ; 
and  a  man  cannot  get  into  the  Church  until  he  has 
"been  baptized^ 

Now,  I  want  to  show  you  that  I  have  the  concurrence 
in  these  opinions  of  men  in  different  ages  of  the  world. 
I  quote  from  the  "  Christian  Review,"  vol.  xxiii..  No. 
92,  April,  1858,  a  collection  of  quotations  from  different 
authors : 

"  Justin  Martyr  wrote  about  A.  D.  150,  not  more  than 
fifty  years  after  the  death  of  the  apostle  John.  On  the 
subject  before  us,  Apol.  2,  p.  162,  apud  Suicerus,  he 
says  :  '  This  food  is  called  by  us  the  Eucharist,  of  which 
it  is  not  lawful  for  any  to  partake,  but  such  as  believe 
the  things  that  are  taught  by  us  to  be  true,  and  have 
been  baptized.' 

*' Jerome,  confessedly  one  among  the  most  learned 
and  candid  of  the  Fathers,  wrote  about  A.  D.  400.  He 
says,  in  cap.  6,  Epist.  2,  ad  Corinth.  :  '  Catechumeni 
communicare  non  possunt,'  &c. — '  Catechumens  cannot 
communicate  at  the  Lord's  table,  being  unbaptized.' 

"  Augustine,  who  wrote  about  A.  D.  500,  maintaining 


399 


the  absolute  necessity  of  administering  the  Lord's  Supper 
to  infants,  Epist.  ad  Bonaf.,  epist.  106,  remarks  :  '  Quod 
nisi  babtizati,'  &c. — '  Of  which  certainly  they  cannot 
partake  unless  Ihey  are  baptized.'  " 

Now,  when  infant  baptism  was  introduced,  or  shortly 
after  it,  infant  communion  was  also  introduced,  and  it  was 
continued  until  the  twelfth  century.  Infant  communion 
went  hand  in  hand  with  infant  baptism.  And  yet  here 
it  is  declared,  even  by  the  men  who  contended  for  infant 
communion,  that  none  were  to  receive  it  until  they  were 
baptized.  I  can  refer  you  to  Church  histories Jthat  I 
have  with  me,  if  these  statements  are  questioned.  To 
continue : 

"  Bede  flourished  about  A.  D.  700.  In  his  Hist.  EccL, 
lib.  2,  cap.  5,  p.  63,  he  narrates  the  following  incident : 
'  Three  young  men,  princes  of  the  Eastern  Saxons,  see- 
ing a  Bishop  administer  the  Sacred  Supper,  desired  to 
partake  of  it  as  their  royal  father  had  dons.  To  whom 
the  Bishop  replied  :  If  you  will  be  baptized  in  the  salu- 
tary fountain  as  your  father  was,  you  may  also  partake 
of  the  Lord's  Supper  even  as  he  did ;  but  if  you  despise 
the  former,  ye  cannot,  in  any  wise,  receive  the  latter.'  " 

Now,  having  given  the  ancient  authors,  I  give  you 
the  more  modern  ones  : 

"  Theophylaot,  in  a  work — Cap.  4  Mat.,  p.  83 — pub- 
lished about  A.  D.  1100,  remarks  :  '  No  unbaptized  per- 
son partakes  of  the  Lord's  Supper.' 

"  Bonaventure,  who  wrote  about  1200,  observes — Apud 
Forbesium,  Instruct.  Historic.  Theolog.,  lib.  10,  cap.  4, 
sect.  9:  'Faith,  indeed,  is  necessary  to  all  the  sacra- 
ments, but  especially,  to  the  reception  of  baptism,  be- 
cause baptism  is  the  first  among  the  sacraments,  and 
the  door  to  the  sacraments.' 


400  RELATIVE    ORDER    OF 

"  Frid.  Spanheim,  who  flourished  about  A.  D.  1600, 
on  the  point  before  us  asserts  (Hist.  Christian,  Col.  6215) : 
'  Subjecta  ad  eucharistiam,'  &c. — '  None  but  baptized 
persons  are  admitted  to  the  Lord's  table.' 

*'  Lord  Chancellor  King  wrote  about  A.  D.  1700.  He 
says  (Enq.  part  2,  p.  44)  :  *  Baptism  was  always  prece- 
dent to  the  Lord's  Supper  ;  and  none  (ever)  were  ad- 
mitted to  receive  the  Eucharist  till  they  were  baptized. 
This  is  so  obvious  to  every  man  that  it  needs  no  proof.'  " 

Now,  we  will  give  the  views  of  several  recent  Pedo- 
bapti.^  writers : 

"  Dr.  Wall  avers  (Hist.  Inf.  Bap.,  part  2,  ch.  9  :  "  No 
Church  ever  gave  the  communion  to  any  persons  before 
they  were  baptized.  Among  all  the  absurdities  that  ever 
were  held,  none  ever  maintained  that  any  person  should 
partake  of  the  communion  before  they  were  baptized.' 

''  Dr.  Manton  observes  (Supp.  to  Morn.  Exer.,  p.  199) : 
*  None  but  baptized  persons  have  a  right  to  the  Lord's 
table.' 

"Dr.  Doddridge  says  (Lectures,  p.  510):  'It  is  cer- 
tain that  Christians  in  general  have  always  been  spoken 
of,  by  the  most  ancient  Fathers,  as  baptized  persons. 
And  it  is  also  certain  that,  as  far  as  our  knowledge  of 
primitive  antiquity  extends,  no  unbaptized  person  re- 
ceived the  Lord's  Supper.' 

"  Dr.  Dwight  thus  expresses  his  opinion  (Sys.  Theol. 
Serm.,  160) :  'It  is  an  indispensable  qualification  for 
this  ordinance,  that  the  candidate  for  communion  be  a 
member  of  the  visible  Church  of  Christ,  in  full  standing. 
By  this  I  intend,  that  he  should  be  a  person  of  piety ; 
that  he  should  have  made  a  public  profession  of  religion ; 
and  that  he  should  have  been  baptized.' 


THE    lord's    supper.  40t 

"  The  distinguished  Dr.  Qriffin  remarks :  '  I  agree 
with  the  advocates  for  close  communion  in  two  points : 
1.  That  baptism  is  the  initiating  ordinance  which  intro- 
duces us  into  the  visible  Church  :  of  course,  where  there 
is  no  baptism,  there  are  no  visible  Churches.  2.  That 
we  ought  not  to  commune  with  those  who  are  not  bap- 
tized, and,  of  course,  are  not  Church  members,  eve^i  if  we 
regard  them  as  Christians^  Should  a  pious  Quaker  so 
far  depart  from  his  principles,  as  to  wish  to  commune 
with  me  at  the  Lord's  table,  while  he  yet  refused  to  be 
baptized,  I  could  not  receive  him  ;  because  there  is  such 
a  relationship  established  between  the  two  ordinances 
that  I  have  no  right  to  separate  them  ;  in  other  words, 
I  have  no  right  to  send  the  sacred  elements  out  of  the 
Church.'  " 

Now  this  supposed  case  of  Dr.  Grriffin  actually  occurred 
in  the  city  of  Richmond  with  Bishop  Moore.  A  pious 
Quaker  came  forward,  when  he  gave  the  invitation  to 
other  denominations  to  commune  with  them,  to  partake  of 
the  Lord's  Supper.  Bishop  Moore,  in  the  most  delicate 
manner,  to  save  the  feelings  of  this  pious  Quaker,  and 
yet  to  maintain  his  conscientious  principles,  went  to  him 
and  said :  "  Retain  your  place  where  you  are :  you 
know  our  views,  that  we  cannot  administer  the  Lord's 
Supper  to  any  unbaptized  person.  But  if  you  will  retain 
your  position,  we  will  pass  you  by,  and  it  will  not  be 
noticed,  and  your  feelings  will  not  be  wounded."  I  do 
not  claim  to  have  given  his  exact  words,  but  if  you  will 
refer  to  Taylor's  work  on  Communion,  pages  23,  24,  and 
25,  he  will  give  you  these  facts,  with  the  statement  that 
he  received  them  from  Bishop  Moore  himself. 

The  Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith  makes  the  Lord's 


.402  RELATIVE    ORDER    OF 

Supper  an  ordinance  "  z «  the  Church.,''''  and  "baptism 
a  sacrament  of  the  New  Testament,  ordained  "by  Jesus 
Christ,  for  the  solemn  admission  of  the  party  baptized 
into  the  visible  Church."— See  chap.  28,  1 ;  29,  1. 

I  will  now  state  my  farther  propositions,  and  present 
the  arguments  upon  them,  in  ilie  next  address,  as  I  can- 
not introduce  any  new  matter  then.  My  next  proposition  is, 
that  none  should  evjoy  the  rights  and  privileges  of  the 
Church,  10 ho  are  not  amenable  to  its  government.  To 
claim  rights  and  privileges  belonging  to  any  class  of  men, 
and  at  the  same  time  deny  their  right  to  hold  you  ame- 
nable for  the  discharge  of  the  duties  which  devolve  upon 
them  in  that  relation,  is  contrary  to  all  right  reasoning. 

First,  under  this  proposition :  No  Church  can  consist- 
ently admit  to  her  communion  those  whom  she  ivould  not 
receive  as  members  of  her  body.  Suppose  a  man  should 
desire  admission  into  any  Church  whose  character,  or 
whose  heterodox  notions  are  such  that  the  Church  would 
be  unwilling  to  admit  him  as  a  member,  would  there 
not  be  a  direct  inconsistency  in  their  permitting  him  to 
commune  with  them  at  the  Lord's  table,  while  they 
would  not  receive  him  into  membership  ?  Now  suppose 
this  man,  who  is  refused  admission  into  your  Church, 
goes  the  next  Sabbath  and  offers  himself  as  a  candidate 
to  some  other  Church,  and  that  that  Church  receives  him, 
not  having  the  same  objections  to  him  that  you  have  ; 
and,  the  Sabbath  after,  he  comes  back  as  a  member  of 
a  sister  Church,  and  takes  his  seat  among  you — the 
very  people  who  objected  to  having  him  among  you. 
Will  you  sincerely  ivelcome  him  ?  That  is  but  one  of 
the  beauties  of  unrestricted  communion. 

Secondly,  No  Church  should  admit  those  to  the  Lord''s 


403 


Supper  loho  are  guilty  of  conduct  for  ivhich  they  would 
exclude  their  oivn  members.  I  need  not  argue  that. 
The  Methodist  Disciplinej  on  page  155,  teacties  that 
doctrine  very  clearly  : 

^' No  person  shall  be  admitted  to  the  Lord's  Supper 
among  us,  ivho  is  guilty  of  any  practice  for  which  we 
would  exclude  a  member  of  our  own  ChurchP 

They  do  undertake  to  sit*  in  judgment  upon  mem- 
bers of  other  Churches  it  seems,  after  all  the  gentle- 
man's apparent  horror  of  sucH  a  course.  How  do  they 
get  at  it  ?  For  what  will  they  exclude  a  member  of 
their  oz///i  Church  ?  Is  it  simply  for  grossly  immoral 
conduct  ?     Let  us  look  at  page  129  of  the  Discipline  : 

^'  Question  5.  What  shall  be  done  with  those  minis- 
ters or  preachers  who  hold  and  disseminate,  publicly  or 
privately,  doctrines  which  are  contrary  to  our  Articles  of 
Religion  ?  Answer.  Let  the  same  process  be  observed 
as  in  the  case  of  gross  immorality." 

According  to  this  view,  there  is  not  an  Episcopal 
minister,  there  is  not  a  Presbyterian  minister,  there  is 
not  a  Baptist  minister,  who  would  not  be  excluded  from 
the  Methodist  Church  if  he  continued  to  preach  the 
same  doctrines  while  in  it  that  he  does  now.  They  dis- 
seminate doctrines  very  different  from  the  "  Articles"  of 
the  Methodist  Church.  And  "  what  must  be  done  with 
thern  ?"  "Deal  with  them  as  with  those  guilty  of 
grossly  immoral  conduct  .^"  Well,  well  I  that  is  beauti- 
ful !  And  yet  no  person  shall  be  admitted  to  their  com- 
munion who  is  guilty  of  conduct  for  which  they  would 
exclude  one  of  their  own  members.  If  the  gentleman 
can  tell  you  by  what  sort  of  logic  he  can  bring  himself 
to  the  point  to  invite  me  to  the  Lord's  table  after  this 


404  RELATIVE    ORDER    OF 

discussion^  he  will  do  what  I  cannot  now  perceive. 
I  have  been  "  disseminating  doctrines"  different  from 
those  of  his  Church,  and  have  been  taking  issue  with 
him  all  along.  He  thinks  he  is  very  charitable  toward 
me,  while  /  am  very  uncharitable  toward  him.  Here  is 
the  argumentum  ad  hominuni.  I  dare  you  to  say  any- 
thing against  Methodisin — against  the  "  Articles  of  our 
religion,"  if  you  are  members  of  the  Methodist  Church, 
if  yoQ  do  not  want  to  be  excluded.  And  if  you  are  not 
members  of  the  "  Methodist  Church,"  and  are  guilty  of 
conduct  for  which  you  would  be  excluded  if  you  ivere 
members  of  it,  you  cannot  come  to  their  communion. 
Very  charitable  to  those  who  agree  with  them^  but 
differ  from  them  if  you  dare  I  Is  there  anything  more 
exclusive  than  that  ?  Here  is  a  Church  that  sets  her- 
self up  to  decide  about  what  men  shall  teach  or  dissem- 
inate, and  yet  the  gentleman,  a  presiding  elder  in  that 
Churchy  and  the  Secretary  of  the  Virginia  Conference, 
asks  us,  ^^  By  ivhat  right  do  you  set  yourselves  up  as 
judges  about  what  men  should  believe  about  baptism  ? 
They  set  themselves  up  as  judges  of  men  who  go  against 
the  doctrines  of  the  ''^Methodist  Church^^  and  say  they 
will  deal  with  them  as  with  men  guilty  of  grossly  im- 
moral conduct.  And  yet  he  charges  21s  with  want  of 
charity  I  0  !  man,  great  is  your  faith,  if  you  expect 
intelligent  men  to  be  influenced  by  such  sophistry  ! 

Having  laid  down  my  propositions,  I  now  ask  you  to 
hear  Hibbard  upon  Baptism,  page  184 : 

''  Baptism,  from  is  nature,  stands  at  the  opening  of 
the  visible  career.  It  is  a  badge  of  the  Christian  pro- 
fession— the  seal  of  the  gospel  covenant — the  ordinance 
of  admission  into  the  visible   Church  of  Christ.     Pre- 


THE  lord's  supper.  405 

viously  to  baptism,  the  individual  has  no  right  in  the 
visible  Church.  Setting  aside,  for  the  present,  communion 
at  the  Lord's  table  as  a  mooted  right  of  the  unbaptized, 
they  have  no  privileges  as  the  members  of  Christ's  mys- 
tical body.  No  society  of  Christians  would  receive  an 
unbaptized  person  into  their  community,  and  tender  to 
him  the  privileges  of  their  body.  So  far  as  proper 
Church  rights  and  privileges  are  concerned,  he  is  re- 
garded in  the  same  light  as  any  unconverted  man." 

[Time  expired.!^ 


MR.  COULLING'S  THIRD  ADDRESS. 

Mr.  CouLLiNG  :  I  am  right  glad  that  I  have  gotten  to 
the  point  for  once.  And  I  am  very  glad  my  good 
brother  has  been  brought  to  it  for  once.  The  point  I 
had  just  made  at  the  time  I  sat  down  was — What  right 
have  they  to  exclude  me  from  the  communion,  while 
they  admit  me  to  be  a  good  man,  and  an  honest  man  ? 
Because  I  differ  from  them.  That  is  the  point.  Now, 
to  meet  it  he  refers  to  two  or  three  passages  in  the 
Methodist  Discipline.  I  wish  to  thank  him  for  giving 
me  the  reference,  for  I  looked  for  it  and  could  not  find 
it.  I  do  not  know  the  Discipline  by  heart,  but  I  love  it 
very  much.  He  turns  to  the  110th  page,  and  reads 
there  that  before  a  person  can  be  received  into  the 
Church,  they  must  be  recommended-  by  a  leader  with 
whom  they  have  met,  at  least,  six  months  on  trial,  and 
have  been  baptized.  And  that,  he  says,  is  the  door  into 
the  Church.  Now,  he  forgets  that  they  have  been  six 
months  probationers  in  the  Church,  and  have  taken  the 


406  RELATIVE    ORDER    OF 

Sacrament  every  time  it  has  been  administered  during 
that  period.  He  did  not  know  that.  He  insists  upon  it, 
too,  that  with  this  they  must  be  baptized,  and  turns  to 
Corinthians  to  show  that  when  you  come  together  in  the 
church  to  take  the  Sacrament,  you  must  be  baptized. 
He  would  have  them  all  baptized  twice  a  Sunday,  and 
then  once  a  week  besides.  For  the  meaning  of  the  pas- 
sage is  just  the  same  as  if  you  were  to  say — meet  to- 
gether in  Shiloh  church-building.  Now  that  does  not 
mean  joining  the  Church  any  more  than  I  do  by  saying 
I  am  in  the  Church,  when  1  am  in  the  building.  x\c- 
cording  to  his  argument,  then,  he  would  have  a  bap- 
tistry right  at  the  door  of  the  Church,  and  every  time  a 
man  steps  into  the  Church  he  would  have  to  be  baptized. 
That  is  his  argument. 

Then  he  makes  one  of  the  most  remarkable  argu- 
ments that  I  ever  listened  to  in  my  life.  I  have  heard 
of  people  talking  in  that  way,  and  I  hear  it  now  with 
my  own  ears  ;  but  I  never  heard  it  before.  Look  at  the 
argument.  He  tarns  to  our  Discipline,  and  sees  that  no 
person  is  to  be  admitted  to  the  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's 
Supper,  who  is  guilty  of  that  for  which  we  would  turn 
out  a  member  of  our  Church.  He  then  turns  to  the 
rules  for  the  trial  of  ministers,  and  if  he  had  known  it, 
he  could  have  turned  to  the  rules  for  the  trial  of  mem- 
bers; and  found  almost  identically  the  same  language 
there — that  when  a  member  of  the  Church  inveighs 
against  the  doctrines  of  the  Church  he  does  wrong,  and 
in  doing  this  is  guilty  of  an  immorality.  And  because 
it  is  an  immorality  in  me  to  preach  against  the  doctrines 
of  the  Church,  for  I  have  pledged  myself  to  preach  the 
doctrines  of  the  Methodist  Church — because  it  is  an  im- 


407 

morality  in  me  to  get  up  and  preach  Universal  ism,  or 
Deism,  or  anything  else,  trying  to  pull  down  the  Church 
committed  to  my  care,  is  it  immorality  for  him  to 
preach  his  conscientious  doctrines  ?  Whoever  heard  of 
such  reasoning  before,  since  the  world  was  made  ? 
What !  The  Methodist  Church  set  in  judgment  upon 
him,  and  say  that  he  is  wrong  for  preaching  as  he  con- 
scientiously believes  ?  The  Church  never  said  so,  and 
does  not  believe  so.  I  cannot  invite  a  Baptist,  Presby- 
terian, or  Episcopalian  to  my  altar,  because  they  differ 
from  me !  Are  they  guilty  of  immoral  conduct,  because 
they  differ  from  me  ?  I  should  want  to  leave  the  world, 
if  I  believed  that.  I  would  not  wish  to  stay  among 
men,  if  I  had  to  stop  and  ask  them — Are  you  Metho- 
dists ? — before  I  could  give  them  my  hand  or  my  confi- 
dence. And  putting  the  Methodist  Church  in  such  a 
posture  as  that,  is  the  strangest  thing  I  ever  heard 
of.  But  it  shows — Well,  no  :  I  will  not  say  what  it 
shows. 

One  admission  he  made  ;  and  I  was  glad  that  he  did. 
He  says  the  question  here  is  not  at  all  as  to  the  mode  of 
baptism.  The  simple  question  before  us  is,  is  it  right  to 
admit  a  person  to  commune  before  he  has  been  baptiz- 
ed ?  To  sustain  that  position,  he  has  read  to  you  many 
things,  and  says  they  are  from  the  ancient  Fathers. 
One  was  in  1700,  another  in  1600;  not  generally  re- 
garded as  very  ancient.  And  then  he  went  on  to  give 
the  opinions  of  a  good  many  of  modern  times.  If  he 
will  let  me  argue  in  this  way,  I  will  argue  him  into  any 
one  of  half  a  dozen  things  that  he  would  not  subscribe 
to  or  consent  to  for  his  life.  I  would  make  him  believe 
that  his  Church  has  no  sort  of  government,  because  it 


408  RELATIVE    ORDER    OF 

has  no  bishops.  According  to  these  very  men  from 
whom  he  quotes,  from  the  days  of  the  apostles  down  to 
this  day,  there  have  been  bishops  in  the  Church.  Is  not 
that  so  ?     Can  I  not  do  that  ? 

A  YoicE  :   Yes,  you  can. 

Mr.  Massey  :  That  is  a  new  witness,  and  I  claim  the 
right  to  cross-examine  the  witnesses  you  introduce. 

Mr.  CouLLiNG  :  I  need  no  witnesses  upon  the  subject. 
There  are  a  hundred  responses  right  before  me,  welling 
up  in  their  hearts,  that  say  I  can  do  it.  Witnesses  ? 
No,  sir  :  I  do  not  need  them.  I  am  to  take  precisely 
what  these  men  say  upon  this  point,  and  a  point,  too, 
upon  w^hich  it  is  known  that  more  heresies  were  intro- 
duced into  the  Church,  and  especially  in  the  early  ages 
of  the  Church,  than  perhaps  upon  any  other  subject.  Is 
that  logic  ?  Is  that  meeting  the  point  ?  And  that,  too, 
in  view  of  his  own  proposition  that  it  is  Scriptural  to 
exclude  a  man,  not  according  to  ''  the  Fathers,"  as  he 
chooses  to  term  them,  or  according  to  modern  Pedobap- 
tists,  but  according  to  the  Bible.  And  where  has  he  put 
his  hand  upon  it  ?  He  shows  that  a  great  many  per- 
sons who  were  disciples,  were  baptized,  and  ate  their 
supper.  To  be  sure  they  did  ;  and  they  went  to  sleep, 
and  ate  their  breakfast,  and  ate  their  dinner,  and  then 
ate  another  supper.  Does  it  follow  that  because  a  poor 
man  could  not  get  his  supper  before  he  went  to  sleep, 
that  he  should  not  eat  breakfast,  if  he  could  get  it  ? 
There  is  as  much  argument  in  the  one  as  in  the  other. 
Let  him  bring  a  "  thus  saith  the  Lord  "  to  compel  him 
to  exclude  me  from  the  Lord's  Supper,  because  I  do  not 
believe  it  is  my  duty  to  go  down  into  the  water. 

He  says  that  is  not  the   question.     What  is  the  ques- 


409 


tion  ?  He  says  that  I  am  honestly  baptized.  How  then 
does  he  sit  in  judgment  upon  me  ?  Because  I  do  not 
say  ''  Shibboleth"  as  he  would  have  me  say  it,  I  shall 
not  say  it  at  all.  That  is  the  only  point  at  issue  between 
us.  Hall  and  "Whitney  make  that  issue  distinctly  ;  and 
so  does  Dr.  Fuller.  Let  me  read  what  Dr.  Fuller  says. 
It  is  on  page  195  of  his  work  : 

"What,  in  effect,  is  the  remonstrance  we  continually 
address  to  our  brethren?  It  is,  that  they  are  unbap- 
tized.  The  more  we  admire  their  character,  so  much 
the  more  do  we  lament  that  they  throw  their  influence 
on  the  side  of  error,  and  continue  in  disobedience. 
Now,  in  not  inviting  them  to  the  Supper,  our  conduct 
only  repeats  this  remonstrance  ;  repeats  it  silently,  and 
kindly,  but  emphatically.  To  invite  them  would  really 
be  a  want  of  love,  for  it  would  be  an  admission  that 
they  are  baptized  ;  and  thus,  in  the  strongest  manner, 
we  would  contradict  our  declarations,  and  confirm  them 
in  error." 

I  will  give  you  another  authority.  I  turn  to  the 
memoir  of  Dr.  Carson,  written,  I  think,  for  the  Baptist 
Publication  Society,  by  G.  C.  Moore,  on  page  36  : 

"  The  Church  at  Tubbermore  became  Baptist  by  de- 
grees. Some  of  the  members  were  baptized  before  the 
pastor.  Owing,  probably,  in  part  to  this  circumstance, 
they  have  never  regarded  an  obedience  to  this  ordinance 
as  an  indispensable  condition  of  admission  to  the  Lord's 
Supper.  Indeed,  they  have  carried  the  principle  of  open 
communion  to  the  utmost  extent,  by  receiving  members 
into  their  body  simply  upon  evidence  of  their  conversion, 
with  but  little  inquiry  whether  they  agreed  with  them 
on  the  subject  of  baptism,  expecting  that  whenever  they 

18 


KLAIVE    ORDER    OF 


became  convinced  of  their  duty  to  be  immersed,  they 
would  attend  to  it. 

**  To  the  great  majority  of  Baptists  it  will  appear, 
that  this  practice,  together  with  their  open  communion, 
was  not  in  accordance  with  the  example  of  those  primi- 
tive Churches,  which,  in  other  points,  it  was  Mr.  Car- 
son's delight  to  imitate ;  and  that  its  tendency  must  be 
to  throw  into  the  shade  an  ordinance  prominent  in  the 
New  Testament,  and  to  dissever  baptism  from  the  Gos- 
pel of  which  it  is  so  expressive  an  emblem." 

Now,  there  is  the  meaning  of  it.  Have  I  misstated 
the  point  ?  Have  I  avoided  the  point  ?  Have  I  evaded 
the  issue  ?  Is  not  that  the  very  issue  I  joined  this  morn- 
ing ?  Have  I  not  kept  it  unblinkingly  before  me  all  the 
time  ?  And  every  argument  I  have  urged,  too,  has  been 
regarded  as  unworthy  of  notice,  except  the  one  that  was 
attempted  to  be  answered  in  the  very  strange  way  I  have 
just  alluded  to. 

It  is  affirmed  that  none  should  claim  the  rights  of  a 
Church  that  are  not  amenable  to  that  Church.  That  struck 
me  as  being  a  queer  position.  If  I  claimed  the  right  to  go 
into  his  Church  and  aid  in  governing  it,  aid  in  controlling 
it,  in  any  way,  I  certainly  ought  to  be  amenable  to  it.  If 
I  enter  into  your  family  as  a  member  of  your  family,  1 
ought  to  conform  myself  to  all  your  regulations  and 
rules  ;  and  if  I  did  not  do  that,  you  ought  to  put  me 
out.  But  I  am  passing  along  the  road,  a  weary  traveller, 
and  you  invite  me  in  there,  and  I  don't  know  much 
about  your  rules,  or  anything  about  your  house.  You 
invite  me  to  take  dinner,  or  supper,  or  to  stay  over  night ; 
and  then  ask  me  to  be  amenable  to  your  regulations.  Is 
there  any  courtesy  there  ?     Should  every  man  whom  you 


411 


invite  to  partake  of  the  Lord's  Supper  be  amenable  to  the 
Church  ?  AVhoever  heard  anything  of  the  kind  ?  The 
sacran:ient  of  the  Lord's  Supper  seems  to  me,  of  all 
others  in  the  world,  to  be  the  place  where  we  should  for- 
get everything  else,  but  the  common  link  that  binds  us 
together.  The  idea  that  none  but  Methodists,  or  Pres- 
byterians, or  Episcopalians  should  commune  with  each 
other,  is  passing  strange.  Why,  where  is  your  authority 
for  that  ?  Put  your  finger  upon  the  passage  in  the  New 
Testament  Scriptures,  and  find  Church  organizations 
there,  under  the  name  and  style  of  the  Church  organi- 
zations of  the  present  day.  Can  you  find  that  ?  Dr. 
Fuller  says  you  cannot.  He  says  there  was  the  Church 
at  Mesopotamia,  at  Rome,  &c.,  but  no  Baptists,  no 
Methodists,  or  Presbyterians  there.  To  whom  did  Christ 
give  the  sacrament  ?  To  the  Baptist  Church  ?  Did  He 
not  give  it  to  those  who  love  him  ?  The  gentleman  ad- 
mits that  he  loves  Christian  people — has  a  great  deal  of 
sympathy  and  kind  feeling  for  them.  Well,  what  will 
he  do  ?  He  will  say  to  you  :  You  will  not  do  the  Lord's 
will,  and  you  cannot  take  the  sacrament  with  me.  Or, 
as  Dr.  Fuller  says,  "  read  him  a  remonstrance,  a  silent, 
kind,  but  an  emphatic  remonstrance,  every  opportunity 
he  can  get,  and  say  to  us,  you  are  not  baptized  ;  you 
have  not  obeyed  the  law."  Now,  that  is  the  only  point 
betvv^een  us.  You  affirm  that,  and  the  proof  of  the 
affirmation  is  upon  you.  Upon  the  subject  of  exclusion 
from  the  Lord's  table  upon  the  ground  of  not  being  bap- 
tized, the  Scriptures  are  as  silent  as  the  grave.  All 
he  has  proved  is,  that  when  the  apostles  found  a  man 
who  was  penitent  they  preached  to  him,  and  when  he 
was  converted  he  was  baptized.     But  in  everything  said 


t 


412  RELATIVE    ORDER    OF 

ia  the  New  Testament  about  baptism,  not  a  word  is  said 
about  not  giving  a  man  the  Sacrament  before  he  is  bap- 
tized.    Not  a  word. 

I  have  shown  you  distinctly  that  proposition,  and 
assuming  the  very  ground  he  himself  has  assumed,  say- 
ing that  the  controversy  is  not  about  the  mode,  but  the 
act  of  baptism  itself.  I  have  shown  you  he  has  no 
Scriptural  authority  for  what  he  affirms,  that  the  Scrip- 
tures authorize  him  to  do  no  such  thing. 

Again  :  he  states  that  no  one  should  admit  one  to 
commune  with  him  that  he  would  not  admit  into  Church 
fellowship.  Well,  that  is  a  canon  that  he  lays  down  for 
himself.  But  I  would  like  him  to  show  me  any  au- 
thority, either  in  the  word  or  principles  of  the  Gospel,  to 
justify  any  such  canon.  There  is  a  man  who  may  be  a 
peculiar  man  in  a  great  many  respects  in  his  notions ; 
so  peculiar  that  we  know  that  if  he  goes  into  a  church  he 
will  do  injury  ;  Ihat  he  will  be  a  mischievous  man.  He 
comes  forward  to  the  altar  and  gives  us  his  name  ;  I 
receive  it  as  the  pastor  of  the  Church ;  I  turn  to  the 
people  and  ask,  is  there  any  objection  to  this  man's  be- 
coming a  probationer  in  the  Church.  One  brother  gets 
up  and  says,  I  object — he  cannot  be  received.  I  ask 
the  brother  why  he  cannot  be  received  ?  He  says,  I 
think  he  is  a  very  good  sort  of  man,  but  I  think  he 
would  be  a  troublesome  member,  and  I  think  it  would 
be  better  for  one  man  to  suffer  than  for  many  to  be  in- 
jured. But  because  I  have  a  right  to  do  that,  I  ask,  in 
the  name  of  reason,  should  every  Church  sit  in  judg- 
ment upon  the  membership  of  every  other  Church  ?  In- 
stitute an  inquisition  before  you  administer  the  Sacra- 
ment ! 


THE  lord's  supper.  413 

Again  :  it  is  affirmed  that  there  is  a  marked  difference 
between  Christian  fellowship  and  Church  fellowship. 
You  may  have  a  great  deal  of  Christian  fellowship  for  a 
man,  and  not  be  able  to  have  Church  fellowship  with 
him.  Suppose  a  case  of  this  kind  :  here  are  two  mem- 
bers of  the  Church  ;  one  is  fully  convinced  in  his  ovv^n 
mind  that  the  other  member  is  an  unprincipled,  wicked 
sinner,  but  he  cannot  prove  it. 

And  yet  he  has  distinctly  that  impression  on  his  mind  : 
he  believes  it,  and  has  no  Christian  feilov/ship  for  him. 
That  man  must  commune  with  the  other  one ;  they  are 
both  members  of  the  same  Church.  There  is  another 
man,  a  member  of  another  Church,  as  pure  and  spotless 
a  man  as  there  is  in  the  world.  But  because  he  does 
not  agree  with  you  in  every  particular,  you  will  take 
that  foul,  wicked  wretch  that  you  have  no  confidence  in, 
and  sit  down  and  commune  with  him,  and  say  to  the 
good  man :  "I  cannot  commune  with  you.  I  want 
authority  for  that ;  because,  if  it  is  your  duty  to  do  it, 
it  is  my  duty  to  do  it ;  it  is  the  duty  of  every  Church  to 
do  it."  I  ask  him  to  illumine  my  darkness,  and  if  I 
should  swell  out  of  all  proportions,  and  become  the  big 
man  he  thinks  I  may  become,  I  may  remodel  my  Church, 
and  make  it  square  with  his  notions  upon  that  subject, 
and  perhaps  upon  some  other  subjects.  And  I  think 
my  getting  so  big  is  about  as  probable  as  my  agreeing 
with  him. 

I  have  a  few  minutes  left,  and  in  that  time  I  may 
perhaps  be  enabled  to  say  a  few  things  more,  and  only 
a  few  things.  I  introduced  the  controversy  upon  this 
point  this  morning  by  remarking  that,  as  far  as  I  was 
individually  concerned,  and  as  far  as  my  Church  was 


414  RELATIVE    ORDER    OF 

concerned,  this  was  comparatively  an  unimportant  sub- 
ject to  us.  I  wish  to  say  this  much;  that  if  my  good 
friends  think  it  is  promotive  of  their  interest  as  a  Church, 
if  the  advancement  or  stability  of  their  Church  depends 
upon  pursuing  such  a  course  toward  all  Christendom, 
and,  as  Br.  Hall  says,  elevate  themselves  upon  a  point, 
and  from  that  point  repel  all  other  Christians  from  them 
— I  will  not  complain  of  them.  I  have  never  said  a 
word  in  my  discourses  upon  baptism,  that  I  recollect  of 
— (1  will  not  say  it  positively,  because  memory  is  right 
treacherous,  sometimes) — but  I  do  not  recollect  of  say- 
ing a  word  complaining  of  anything  that  my  baptist 
brethren  do  upon  this  subject.  I  may  have  made  the 
remark,  that  if  I  felt  disposed  to  complain  of  anything, 
it  would  be  of  that.  But  that  is  a  matter  with  them,  a 
matter  of  taste,  a  matter  of  principle  with  them.  And, 
as  far  as  I  am  concerned,  they  have  my  hearty  consent 
to  do  it,  just  as  long  as  they  choose  to  do  it.  But  do  not 
try  to  compel  me  to  do  it.  Do  not  say  it  is  my  duty  to 
do  it.  Do  not  say  I  pursue  identically  the  same  course 
with  yourselves,  when  the  world  knows  that  I  pursue 
no  such  course.  Do  not  say  that  I  sit  in  judgment  upon 
other  people,  and  exclude  them  from  the  Lord's  table, 
and  cannot  invite  ministers  and  members  of  other 
Churches  to  commune  with  me,  because  they  do  not 
subscribe  to  my  creed.  Do  not  say  that.  I  do  not  like 
to  be  placed  in  such  a  category  :  I  protest  against  it. 

You  have  the  argument,  as  far  as  I  am  concerned, 
before  you.  My  good  brother  may  insist  upon  it  again 
— and  I  have  no  doubt  but  that  he  will,  because  he  finds 
it  written  in  the  Bible  that  they  were  baptized,  and  then 
they  took  the   Lord's  Supper.     And  because  it  says  in 


.   THE  lord's  supper.  415 

the  commission,  believe  and  be  baptized,  and  seme  time 
afterward  they  took  the  Supper;  and  because  you  do 
not  find  it  anywhere  written  that  they  took  the  Supper 
before  they  were  baptized,  he  may  say  you  are  bound 
by  this  regular  succession  of  words  to  observe  it.  Now 
I  want  the  Scripture  rule  for  it ;  and  the  law  for  it ;  and 
a  ''thus  saith  the  Lord."  He  says,  the  controversy  is 
not  about  the  mode  of  baptism,  and  that  we  honestly 
believe  that  we  are  baptized.  Yet  he  does  not  tell  us 
how  he  is  to  exclude  us  from  the  Lord's  table.  I  sup- 
pose he  will  do  that  before  he  is  done  :  unless  that  is 
new  matter  to  be  brought  into  a  closing  argument. 


MR.  MASSEY'S  CLOSING  REPLY. 

Mr.  Massey: — Messrs.  Moderators,  Ladies,  and  Gen- 
tlemen :  If  I  have  been  so  fortunate  as  to  impart  to  the 
gentlemen  some  information  with  regard  to  the  difference 
between  open  communion  and  restricted  communion 
Baptists,  he  seems  resolved  to  reciprocate  the  compli- 
ment. 

I  never  learned,  until  to-day,  that  ecclesia  means  a 
house  ;  I  had  learned  that  oikos  means  liouse^  and  that 
ecclesia  means  an  assembly ;  and  that  the  character  of 
that  assembly  must  be  determined  by  the  context.  Ec- 
clesia is  rendered  church  in  the  passage  to  which  I  called 
your  attention,  in  the  eleventh  chapter  of  1  Corinthians. 
Paul  was  addressing  the  assembled  disciples  of  Christ, 
and  giving  them  instruction  with  regard  to  the  proper 
manner  of  partaking  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  he  recog- 
nizes thera,  thus  assembled,  as  a  church.     Mr.  CouUing 


416  RELATIVE    ORDER    OF 

explains  the  passage  to  mean,  merely  going  into  a  house : 
"  Just  like,"  he  said,  "  I  would  say  when  you  come  into 
shiloh,  meaning  the  meeting-house.^^  If  his  definition 
of  ecclesia  be  correct,  then,  when  Paul  wrote  to  the 
churches  at  Corinth  and  G alalia.,  he  wrote  to  the  houses 
at  those  places,  and  not  to  the  Christian  assemblies — the 
Churches.  But  these  are  not  all  of  the  beauties  of  this 
wonderful  criticism.  When  Paul  says  to  the  Corinth- 
ians, "Aquila  and  Priscilla  salute  you  much  in  the  Lord, 
with  the  Church  that  is  in  their  house ;^^  to  the  Colos- 
sians,  "  Salute  the  brethren  which  are  in  Laodicea,  and 
Nymphas,  and  the  Church  which  is  in  his  house  ;  and 
when  he  addresses  Philemon  and  the  Church  that  is 
in  his  house,  does  he  mean  to  speak  of  and  salute 
houses  that  are  within  these  houses  ?  The  gentleman 
must  know  that  he  referred  to  Christian  assemblies  which 
were  accustomed  to  hold  their  meetings,  for  the  worship 
of  Grod,  and  the  transaction  of  such  business  as  required 
to  be  transacted  by  them  as  Churches,  in  the  houses  of 
the  persons  mentioned. 

I  am  glad  that  we  are  able  to  agree  in  one  thing  at 
least.  He  says  he  does  not  complain  of  Baptists  for  en- 
tertaining their  views.  I  assure  him  I  will  not  complain 
of  him  for  not  complaining  of  them.  We  will  agree 
there  at  least. 

He  appears  to  be  rather  surprised  that  I  did  not  say 
something  about  the  privileges  enjoyed  by  probationers 
in  the  Methodist  Church.  He  wonders  that  I  did  not 
know  that  probationers  enjoyed  all  the  privileges  of  full 
members.  It  is  rather  surprising  that  the  gentleman 
should  expect  me  to  know  the  polity  of  the  Methodist 
Church  which  they  have  not  recorded  in  their  discipline^ 


417 


while  he  does  not  seem  to  know  what  is  recorded  in  it. 
I  do  not  undertake  to  learn  the  polity  of  a  Church  by  lis- 
tening 1o  a  few  of  her  preachers,  but  by  examining  their 
standard  works  ;  and  the  gentleman  acknowledges  that 
their  '*^ Discipline'^  is  a  standard  work.  The  Lord's  Sup- 
per is  a  Church  ordinance,  and  in  the  "  Methodist  Dis- 
cipline" I  learn  that  none  can  be  members  of  the  Church 
without  being  baptized.  If  he  chooses  to  say  that  his 
Church  has  no  boundary^  no  luall^  no  restriction^  that 
those  out  of  the  Church  have  all  the  privileges  of  those 
in  it,  I  am  willing  for  it  to  have  all  the  credit  that  such 
a  defence  will  entitle  it  to.  But  I  cannot  recognize  it 
as  a  Church  of  Christ.  It  may  be  a  society^  but  hardly 
an  organization :  certainly  not  a  regularly  organized 
Church.  No  Church  of  Christ  would  dare  extend  such 
privileges. 

There  is  not  another  point  in  the  gentleman's  ad- 
dresses that  needs  to  be  referred  to.  He  has  advanced 
no  new  matter.  And  I  am  not  permitted  to  introduce 
new  matter  in  a  closing  address.  I  have,  therefore, 
to  address  you  upon  those  things  already  presented,  if  I 
address  you  at  all.  I  am  very  much  disposed  to  do  that 
thing.  And  hence,  painful  and  unpleasant  as  it  seems 
to  be  to  the  gentleman,  I  must  again  recur  to  the  views 
of  Methodists  with  regard  to  communion.  He  does  not 
like  to  be  placed  in  company,  even,  of  those  who  set 
themselves  up  as  judges  of  other  men's  consciences. 

Look  at  the  consistency  of  the  gentleman  :  a  man 
wants  to  join  his  Church  ;  "  Ae  may  he  a  very  good  sort 
of  a  fellow.''^  I  do  not  know  just  what  he  means  by  that 
expression.  Does  he  mean  that  a  good,  kind-hearted, 
clever  "  sort  of  a  fellow"  can  join  his^Church,  though  he 


4  IS 


RELATIVE    ORDER    OF 


has  not  been  converted  ?  That  he  would  receive  such 
"  a  fellow"  but  for  the  objection  of  some  member  ?  If 
he  claims  that  this  man  is  a  Christian — one  who  has 
been  made  a  new  creature  in  Christ  Jesus,  by  spiritual 
regeneration,  and  yet  refuses  to  permit  him  to  become  a 
member  of  his  Church,  simply  upon  the  ground  that  he 
has  some  little  peculiarity,  he  sets  himself  up  as  a  judge 
of  the  most  arbitrary  character.  He  not  only  sits  in 
judgment  upon  the  man's  conscience^  but  upon  both  head 
and  heart. 

The  applicant  "  may  be  a  very  good  sort  of  fellow," 
and  a  true  believer  in  the  Scriptural  sense,  and  yet  if  he 
decides  that  he  is  ''  <z  sort  of  queer  genius^  a  singular 
sort  of  fellow ^"^  one  who  does  not  agree  with  him  in  all 
his  notions — does  not  agree  to  all  his  rules  and  articles 
of  religion,  the  door  of  his  Church  is  hermetically  sealed 
or  barred  against  him.  Yet,  wonderful  to  tell  I  the  gen- 
tleman is  perfectly  shocked  at  the  thought  of  being 
placed  in  company  even  with  those  who  undertake  to  de- 
cide upon  the  qualifications  of  those  whom  they  invite 
to  partake  with  them  of  the  most  solemn  rite  of  the 
Christian  Church !  If  the  gentleman  claims  that  the 
man  whom  he  refuses  to  receive  into  his  Church  is  not  a 
Christian^  then  by  what  right  does  he  administer  to  him 
a  Christian  ordinance  ?  Or  carry  an  ordinance  of  the 
Church  out  of  the  Church,  and  give  it  to  a  man  of  the 
world  ?  If  he  be  an  unregenerate  man,  by  what  au- 
thority do  you  give  him  the  "  children's  bread  ?"  What 
enjoyment  can  such  a  man  have  in  partaking  of  this 
commemoration  of  the  death  of  a  risen  Saviour  ?  Will 
a  stranger  who  gazes  upon  a  portrait,  the  original  of 
which  he  never  knew,  enjoy  the  pleasing  associations 


THE   lord's  supper.  419 

that  cluster  around  it,  as  the  son  will  ^Yho  beholds  in  it 
the  features  of  his  own  devoted  father  ?  The  stranger 
may  look  upon  it  as  a  beautiful  picture,  and  he  may  ad- 
mire the  artistic  skill  displayed  in  it ;  but  there  is  noth- 
ing of  personal  interest  in  it  to  him.  The  father  may 
have  said  to  the  son  when  presenting  him  this  portrait, 
just  before  leaving  this  world,  "  This  is  my  portrait. 
As  often  as  you  look  upon  this,  think  of  me  ;  of  my  love 
to  you  ;  my  instructions,  and  my  care."  The  affection- 
ate son  never  beholds  this  portrait  without  having  all 
,  these  instructions  revived  in  his  memory. 

This  portrait — the  Lord's  Supper,  in  which  we  "show 
forth  the  Lord's  death  till  he  come,"  was  given  by  Jesus 
Christ  to  his  children  upon  the  eve  of  his  departure,  and 
none  but  his  children  have  a  right  to  it,  nor  can  any 
others  enjoy  it.  But  a  man  may  be  a  child  of  G-od,  and 
yet,  if  Mr.  Coulling's  views  be  correct,  Methodists 
would  refuse  him  the  privilege  of  Church  membership, 
because  he  is  a  little  peculiar  in  his  notions.  Is  there 
anything  more  ludicrous  than  the  ivonderful  sensibility 
of  the  gentleman  at  the  bare  thought  of  heing  suspected 
of  deciding  other  men's  cases  after  this  exposition  of  his 
views  ?  "  No  judge  of  other  men^s  consciences  .'"  Not 
he  !  But  a  very  nice  judge  of  their  heads  !  The  gen- 
tleman says  that  my  view  of  the  "  Methodist  Disci- 
pline is  the  strangest  sort  of  a  thing  he  ever  heard  of  since 
he  was  born  !"  Let  us  see  if  I  have  not  given  the  cor- 
rect view  of  it.  This  "Discipline"  says,  ^' No  person 
shall  be  admitted  to  the  Lord^s  Supper  among-  us  ivho  is 
guilty  of  any  practice  for  which  ive  would  exclude  a 
member  of  our  Church.''^  Now^  for  what  will  they  ex- 
clude a  member  of   their   Church  ?      This  same  disci- 


420  RELATIVE    ORDER    OF 

pline  declares  in  the  most  unequivocal  language,  that  any 
member  of  their  Church,  (the  gentleman  says  it  is  the 
same  with  both  ministers  and  private  members  ;)  any 
member  of  their  Church  who  holds  and  disseminates 
either  publicly  or  privately,  doctrines  contrary  to  their 
articles  of  religion,  shall  be  dealt  with  as  they  deal  with 
those  guilty  of  gross  immorality.  How  will  they  deal 
with  those  who  are  guilty  of  gross  immorality  ?  I  sup- 
pose the  gentleman  w^ill  claim,  from  self-respect,  that 
they  exclude  such  from  their  fellowship.  Now,  bear  in 
mind,  that  no  man  shall  be  invited  to  commune  with 
them,  who  is  guilty  of  any  practice  for  which  they  would 
exclude  a  member  ;  and  if  you  can  put  two  and  two 
together  and  make  four,  you  can  put  these  together  and 
see  that  no  man  who  disseminates  doctrines  different 
from  their  ''  Articles  of  Religion"  can  be  admitted  to 
their  communion,  without  a  violation  of  their  Disci- 
pline. He  cannot  get  out  of  that  dilemma.  There  is  a 
wall  surrounding  him,  which  he  will  find  himself  unable 
to  overleap. 

Now,  in  conclasion,  I  have  a  few  remarks  to  make 
with  regard  to  the  deductions  proper  to  be  made  from 
these  arguments.  Jt  has  been  clearly  established  that 
haptism  is  a  prerequisite  to  the  Lord's  Supper.  It  has 
not  been  contended  that  each  Church  shall  not  deter- 
mine for  itself  what  baptism  is.  I  do  not  undertake 
to  determine  that  for  Methodists,  Presbyterians,  or 
Episcopalians.  They  must  settle  that  in  their  own 
minds,  .according  to  their  own  conscientious  views  of  the 
Word  of  Grod.  And,  when  they  have  settled,  in  the 
first  place,  that  baptism  is  a  prerequisite  to  the  Lord's 
Supper,  and  then  what  constitutes  baptism,  I  will  never 


421 


complain  of  them  for  inviting  all  whom  they  recognize 
as  baptized  to  partake  with  them.  I  suppose  the 
brother's  great  liberality^  and  wonderful  charity  toward 
*'  all  the  world  and  the  rest  of  mankind^^''  will  at  least 
cause  him  to  extend  to  me^  as  he  claims  to  be  so  much 
more  charitable  than  I  am,  the  same  privilege  that  I  ex- 
tend to  all  others  ;  and  say  that  Baptists  must,  accord- 
ing to  this  principle,  determine  what  they  consider  the 
Word  of  Grod  to  teach  upon  this  subject.  If  they  con- 
sider baptism  a  prerequisite  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  you 
certainly  will  not  complain  of  them.  And  when  they 
decide  from  the  Word  of  God  that  immersion  is  the  only 
-apostohc  baptism,  you  cannot  complain  if  they  only  in- 
vite all  whom  they  recognize  as  baptized  to  partake  with 
them  of  this  ordinance.  You  surely  will  not  have  me 
believe  that  my^  Pedobaptist  brethren  desire  me  to  go 
against  my  conscientious  convictions^  and  invite  those 
whom  I  do  not  belitve^  from  all  the  light  which  the  Word 
of  G-od  gives  me  upon  the  subject,  have  been  baptized, 
while  they  claim  the  right  to  exercise  their  consciences, 
and  rejoice  that  ''no  man  dares  to  molest  them,  or  to  make 
them  afraid."  Whe7'e,  then,  is  there  any  foundation  for 
charging  us  with  selfishness  or  bigotry  ?  Where  is  the 
ground  upon  which  our  Pedobaptist  brethren  can  com- 
plain of  the  viev/s  entertained  by  Baptists  upon  this  sub- 
ject ?  If  they  are  sustained  by  the  Word  of  God — if 
Dr.  Hibbard  and  Dr.  Griffin  are  warranted  by  this  au- 
thority in  saying,  that  "  the  Baptists  are  no  more  liable 
to  the  charge  of  close  communion  than  others  who  stand 
upon  the  same  principle  —  valid  baptism — and  invite 
those  whom  they  believe  to  have  received  valid  baptism," 
which  is  all  that  the  Baptists  do,  where  is  that  of  which 


422*  RELATIVE    ORDER    OF 

the  gentleman  "  would  be  disposed  to  complain,"  if  he 
were  not  so  forbearing  that  he  ivill  not  even  complain 
of  this  ? 

I  will  not  state  to  you  what  baptism  is.  That  might 
be  considered  new  matter.  I  need  not  indeed  do  so,  as 
I  declared  our  views  upon  this  subject  in  a  former  dis- 
cussion, and  think  I  sustained  them  by  the  word  of  G-od. 
We  have  shown  you  luhat  baptism  is,  and  who  are  the 
proper  subjects  of  baptism — who  have  the  proper  quali- 
fications for  receiving  that  ordinance.  We  have  stated 
what  we  believe  to  be  the  design  of  the  ordinance  of 
baptism,  as  instituted  by  the  great  head  of  the  Church, 
and  I  have  now  shown  you  that  there  is  not  a  shadoiv  of 
proof  in  the  word  of  Grod — (though  being"  upon  the 
negative,  I  was  not  required  to  do  this) — of  authority  to 
invite  anybody  to  partake  of  the  Lord's  Supper  ivho  has 
not  received  valid  baptism.  A  great  cry  has  been  made 
about  the  difTerence  between  John's  baptism  and  Chris- 
tian baptism.  And  the  gentleman  seems  disturbed  be- 
cause I  did  not  occupy  a  large  portion  of  my  time  in  re- 
plying to  him.  I  told  him  in  the  commencement  that 
whatever  views  he  might  take  of  that  question,  it  did 
not  touch  the  merits  of  the  question  before  us  in  the 
least  degree.  I  have  aimed  to  present  you  an  un- 
broken chain  of  argument,  drawn  from  the  word  of  Grod 
itself. 

I  now  submit  the  whole  of  these  questions  to  you. 
Though  I  differ  from  many  present,  and  have  endeavored, 
in  the  most  unflinching  manner,  to  advocate  the  doc- 
trines that  I  believe  the  word  of  God  to  teach,  I  do 
not,  for  a  moment,  allow  these  differences  of  opinion  to 
lessen   my  kind    feelings  for   those  who   differ  from  me. 


THE  lord's  supper.  423 

My  great  and  earnest  desire  is,  that  we  may  all  under- 
stand the  truth  as  it  is  in  Christ  Jesus.  And  if  I  am 
mistaken,  that  I  may,  by  all  the  light  that  can  be  shed 
upon  it,  be  brought  to  understand  it.  If  I  am  in  error, 
I  will  thank  any  man  who  will  shed  light  upon  my  path, 
and  enable  me  to  comprehend  more  clearly  the  truth  in 
Jesus  Christ.  And  I  say  to  every  man : — if  you  prize 
your  religious  enjoyments  upon  earth,  if  you  desire  the 
approbation  of  your  Heavenly  Father,  and  to  enjoy  the 
glories  of  the  eternal  world,  strive  to  make  your  lives  as 
the  word  of  God  would  have  them.  Strive  to  do  the 
will  of  God.  Say  from  your  heart,  "  Speak,  Lord,  thy 
servant  heareth."     Let  your  motto  be  : 

"  Througli ^00^5  and  flames  if  Jesus  lead, 
ril  follow  -wliere  He  goes  ; 
Hinder  me  not,  shall  be  my  cry, 
Though  earth  and  hell  oppose." 


Boohs  Published  hy  Sheldon  <&  Co, 


THE  LIFE  AND  LETTERS  OP 

MRS.    EMILY    0.   JUDSON, 

(Fannt  Forrester,) 

Third  wife  of  the  Rev.  Adoniram  Judson,  D.D.,  Missionary  to  Burmab. 

By  A.  C.  Kexdrick,  Professor  of  G-reek  in  the  University  of  Rochester. 

1  voL  12 mo.,  with  a  steel-plate  Likeness  of  iLrs.  Judson. 

Price  $1  25. 

"  The  narrative  is  carefully  and  beautifully  ■written." — Commercial  Advertiser, 

"  This  '  Life  and  Letters'  must  take  a  high  rank  among  the  religious  biography  of  oul 
country." — li'ew  Bedford  Mercury. 

"Not  least  among  the  many  chai-ms  of  this  delightful  bit  of  biography  will  be  re- 
cognized several  sunny  letters  from  N.  P.  Willis,  to  his  literary  protege,  \vhich  present 
the  Rome  Journalist  in  a  most  pleasing  light." — Cor.  Boston  Post. 

"It  is  a  biography  nncommonly  rich  with  all  the  materials  which  a  gifted  and  devoted 
woman  could  supply  from  the  stores  of  her  well-spent  life.  The  world  and  the  Church 
should  both  be  grateful  for  these  records  of  genius,  and  these  triumphs  of  Christian  faith, 
contained  within  the  pages  of  this  charming  book." — Christian  Intelligencer. 

"  Her  correspondence  is  marked  by  frankness  and  an  intensity  of  passion,  and  its  peru- 
sal gives  the  reader  an  insight  into  her  character,  which  he  feels  to  be  as  truthful  and 
positive  as  a  personal  acquaintance  of  considerable  familiarity  could  afford.  As  a  biog- 
raphy, the  volume  occupies  the  first  rank.  It  is  full  of  unpretending  pathos,  and  will  be 
widely  read,  valued,  and  treasured  as  a  beautiful  and  thrilling  history  of  one  of  the  most 
talented,  unselfish,  noble,  heroic,  and  devoted  of  women." — (Joiigregationalist. 

"  In  biography,  this  is  the  book  of  the  season — and  of  many  seasons.  "We  confess  to 
having  always  felt,  in  spite  of  our  reluctance,  an  unpleasant  degree  of  misgiving  as  to  the 
fitness  of  '  Fanny  Forrester'  for  the  Avork  of  missions  ;  but  us  Dr.  Kendrick  has  por- 
trayed her  character  and  recorded  her  life,  she  carries  our  sympathy — our  admiration — 
our  reverence,  by  storm.  Henceforth  we  place  her  among  the  heroines  and  martyrs  of 
Christianity.  Not  because  we  forgive  '  Alderbrook'  for  the  sake  of 'Bat  Castle' — our 
old  way  of  thinking  was  somewhat  in  that  style — but  because  we  see  now  how  the  spirit 
of  unselfish  consecration  to  the  happiness  of  others  runs  through  both,  and  makes  them 
'parts  of  one  harmonious  whole.'  Her  'Life  and  Letters'  are  worthy  of  an  immense 
sale,  and  will  have  it.  How  'a  digger  among  Greek  roots'  could  write  such  a  fresh, 
appreciative,  glowing  memoir  of  'a  sensitive  child  of  genius  and  song,'  passes  our  com- 
prehension ;  and  we  can  not  forbear  the  remark,  that  Mrs.  Judson  does  not  rise  more 
in  our  esteem  as  a  Christian  woman,  than  Dr.  Kendrick  as  an  author." — lieligious  Her- 
ald, Hichmond. 

"The  correspondence  is  particularly  attractive.  Sweetness,  simplicity,  affectionata- 
ness,  and  humor  are  its  characteristics.  The  volume  will  raise  even  the  high  estimate 
which  the  public  has  formed  of  Mrs.  Judsou.  The  nearer  it  conducts  us  to  the  most 
secret  feelings  of  her  heart  and  most  cherished  convictions  of  her  mind,  the  more  genial, 
loveable,  and  noble  she  appears." — Boston  Transcrij^t. 

"The  letters  of  Dr.  Judson  throw  new  light  upon  his  loving,  genial  nature,  and  show 
how  thoroughly  his  last  marriage  was  one  of  affection,  and  how  happy  it  proved.  For 
her  faithfulness  to  every  duty,  her  self-sacrificing  generosity  to  her  family,  her  devotion 
to  ner  husband,  the  maternal  love  which  knew  no  difference  between  his  children  and 
her  own,  and  the  ever-growing  beauty  of  her  spiritual  life,  Mrs.  Emily  C,  Judson  deserves 
a  large  place  in  the  public  heart." — Boston  Journal. 


Books  Published   hy   Sheldon   c&    Co. 


ADONIKAM     JUDSON. 

A  Memoir  of  the  Life  and  Labors  of  the  Rev.  Adoniram  Judson,  D.D., 
By  Francis  Wayland,  D.D, 

Illustrated  with  a  fine  Portrait  of  Dr.  Judson.    Two  volumes  12 mo.  Price  $2. 
Or  two  volumes  in  one.     Price  $1.25. 

"  "We  are  glad  to  seo  this  valuable  biography  of  one  of  the  most  remarkable  men  ol 
tlie  age  in  which  he  lived,  in  ono  volume,  and  at  a  price  so  low  that  its  circulation  must 
be  very  extensive.  Dr.  Judson  was  a  man  of  undaunted  resolution,  wonderful  natural 
gifts,  high  attainments,  and  earnest  and  self-denying  piety.  He  was  exposed  to  many 
dangers,  and  passed  through  many  perils  for  the  love  he  bore  to  his  Saviour,  and  the 
Bouls  of  men.  When  Judson  first  went  out  to  India,  many  regretie<l  that  one  of  such 
3no  abilities  should  engage  in  such  a  work.  But  his  name  will  never  disappear  from  the 
history  of  the  world,  and  only  eternity  can  reveal  the  eflfcctsof  his  labors  in  the  salvation 
of  souls,  and  in  awakening  the  missionary  spirit  in  the  churches."— P/'es&yfe/'.  Banner. 

"  This  biography  is  so  well  known  that  we  need  only  say  of  the  copy  now  before  us,  that 
It  is  a  cheap  edition,  giving  the  two  volumes  in  one,  and  thus  placing  the  book  within  the 
reach  of  all.  None  interested  in  missionary  enterprise,  none  able  to  appreciate  the  life 
of  a  great  man  doing  a  great  work  nobly,  ably,  and  with  much  self-denial,  should  fail  to 
read  iV— Philadelphia  Jotirnal. 

"  It  is  one  of  the  noblest  monuments  to  true  worth  that  the  world  has  ever  produced. 
Though  dead,  yet  in  these  pi-inted  volumes  his  spirit  will  live  and  speak  to  this  and 
coming  generations,  in  strains  of  power  and  eloquence  such  as  his  own  tongue  could 
never  give  birth  to.  It  is  an  occasion  of  gladness  to  all  the  friends  of  missions,  that  one 
so  well  qualified  for  the  task  has  embalmed  all  this  on  the  printed  page.  A  sublimer 
theme  could  not  be  furnished  any  man  since  the  apostles.  Let  the  Memoir  find  ita 
way  to  every  family  in  the  land,  and  it  will  not  fail  to  create  new  sympathies,  and  enlist 
fresh  zeal  in  that  cause  to  which  Judson  gave  his  all." — Philadelphia  C.  Chronicle. 

SEKMONS    TO    THE   CHURCHES. 

By  Francis  Watlaxd,  D.D.     1  vol.  12mo.     Price  85  cents. 
CONTEITTS. 


V. — Slavkrt  to  PrTBLic  Opinion. 
VI. — TiiK  Perils  of  KionES. 
VII. — Pp.evalext  Prayek. 
VIII. — Resp  wsibility  for    the  MosAi 
Condition  of  Others. 


1. — The  Apostolic  Ministry. 
II. — TuE  Church  a  Society  for  the  Con- 
version OF  the  World. 
III. — Christian  Worship. 
IV. — A  Consistent  Piety  the  Dejiand  of 
the  Age. 

"It  grapples  with  living  evils  and  errors,  and  will  make  a  practical  impression."— 
Cincinnati  Christian  Herald. 

"  This  is  a  book  truly  worth  printing,  and  worth  reading.  They  are  discourses  on  im- 
portant topics,  admirably  written  by  a  noble  Christian." — American  Presbyterian. 

"Dr.  Wayland  is  a  clear  thinker,  and  a  strong  and  elegant  writer.    His  Sermons  are 

models  worthy  of  study." — Christian  Intelligeiicer. 

"They  are  emphatically  sermons  for  the  times.  The  plowshare  of  Christian  truth  and 
duty  is  driven  with  unrelenting  hand  into  the  festering  evila  of  our  popular  Christianity, 
anl  there  are  some  passages  which  should  make  the  ears  of  professing  Christians  tingleu^ 
—Southern  Presbyterian. 


JBoofCs  Published  by  Sheldon  <jb  Co. 


MARY    BUNYAlSr, 

THE  DREAMER'S  BLIND  DAUaHTER. 

A  Tale  of  religious  persecution.    By  Mrs.  S.  Rochester  Ford,  of  Louisville. 

1  vol.,  12mo.,  488  pages,  Illusirated.     Price  $1  00. 

From  the  ITeio  Torh  Examiner. 

"  The  numerous  readers  of '  Grace  Trnman'  have  here  another  work  on  a  topic  of  deep 
and  thrilling  interest,  from  the  author  of  that  highly  popular  book.  Mary  Bunyan,  the 
blind  daughter  of  the  immortal  dreamer,  is  referred  to  repeatedly  in  his  autobiography 
and  other  works.  She  was  about  twelve  years  of  age  when  Bunyan  was  imprisoned  in 
Bedford  jail,  and  his  anxiety  on  her  behalf  was  one  of  his  principal  causes  of  distress 
^in  his  long  imprisonment. 

"  As  drawn  by  Mrs.  Ford,  her  character  seems  to  have  been  one  of  great  modesty  and 
loveliness,  and  the  story  of  her  love  for  William  Dormer,  and  of  his  death  for  the  "cause 
of  civil  and  religious  freedom,  has  much  of  the  pathetic  element  in  it.  Mrs.  Ford  is  evi' 
dently  thoroughly  aufait  in  the  incidents  of  Bunyan's  family  history,  and  in  the  topog> 
raphy  of  Bedford  and  Elstow.    We  can  safely  predict  for  the  work  aii  extensive  sale." 


From  the  New  Torh  Evangelist. 

"  The  simple  incidents  of  Bunyan's  life,  his  protracted  imprisonment,  his  heroic  endur 
ance  and  lofty  faith,  are  of  themselves  full  of  the  deepest  and  most  thrilling  interest.  It 
needed  only  the  picture  of  his  blind  daughter  Mary,  in  her  gentleness  and  patience  under 
sore  misfortune,  to  give  completeness  to  the  trasric  yet  noble  scenes  in  which  Bunyan 
figures,  so  modestly  yet  gi-andly  conspicuous.  The  author  of  the  volume  before  us  "has 
carefully  gathered  up  such  historical  facts — and  they  are  fortunately  numerous  and  well 
authenticated — as  could  throw  light  upon  her  subject,  and  has  employed  them  with  great 
sagacity  and  effect  in  the  construction  of  her  story." 


From  the  American  Baptist.,  N.  Y. 

"  The  announcement  of  a  new  work  from  the  accomplished  authore?;s  of  '  Grace  Tru- 
man,' will  send  a  thrill  of  delight  through  thousands  of  hearts.  This  book  will  be  read 
with  an  enthusiasm  rarely  equaled.  Think  of  the  subject,  the  persecution  of  John  Bun- 
yan, his  family  and  the  times.  Who  does  not  know  him  ?  Who  does  not  want  to  hear 
him  as  he  pleads  his  cause  before  unjust  judges,  and  members  of  churches?  his  wife,  as 
she  seeks  his  release  from  the  gloomy  prison  cell  ?  his  poor  blind  daughter,  as  she  tries 
to  help  her  weeping  mother  bear  the  burden  of  her  bereavement  ?  It  is  by  no  means 
untimely  at  this  day,  when  so  many  shrink  from  suffering  for  truth  and  liberty  of  speech. 
There  will  be  many  a  moistened  eye  over  the  beautiful  pages  of  touching  scenes  in  the 
history  of  one  whom  all  know  only  to  love.  Before  it  was  out  of  the  i)ress  five  thou- 
sand copies  had  been  ordered,  and  we  doubt  not  it  will  have  an  i.mmense  sale.  It  con- 
tains a  few  cuts  illustrative  of  the  scenes." 


From  the  PittHburg  Chronicle. 

"  This  is  the  last  product  from  the  pen  of  a  lady  whose  writings  are  rapidly  becoming 
popular.  Her  last  work,  'Grace  Truman,'  had  a  sale  of  over  30,000  copies,  and  this  one 
is  said  to  be  a  better  and  a  more  interesting  book.  It  is  a  very  pleasing  tale  of  fiction, 
the  scene  of  which  is  in  '  Merrie  England,'  and  the  chief  character,  the  immortal  and 
never-to-be-forgotten  John  Bunyan,  writer  of  the  Pilgrim's  Progi-ess." 


Books  Published  by  Sheldon  d;   Co. 


PEINCIPLES  AND  PKACTICES  OF  BAPTISTS. 

By  Francis  Wayland,  D.D.     1  vol  12mo.     Cloth  $1  00. 

From  the  Christian  Chronicle,  Philadelphia. 

"  Dr.  %Yayland  reviews  our  whole  Baptist  polity,  commends  whei'e  he  sees  cause  for  it, 
and  reproves  aud  suggests  the  remedy  where  he  seys  cause  tor  this.  All  our  Princij^les 
and  Practices  as  a  church  he  considers  and  discusses  with  great  simplicity  and  earufst- 
ness.  *  *  »  We  hope  the  book  will  find  its  way  into  every  family  in  every  Baptist 
Church  in  the  land,  and  should  he  glad  to  know  it  was  generally  circulated  in  the  families 
of  other  churches." 

From  the  North  American  Review. 

"  We  do  not  remember  to  have  met  anywhere,  in  the  same  space,  with  so  much  prac- 
tical wisdom  on  sermon-making,  on  the  delivery  of  sermons,  aud  on  the  manner  of  the 
pulpit,  as  is  condensed  into  the  last  fifty  pages  of  this  book." 

From  the  Xew  York  Observer. 
"  We  regard  it  as  one  of  the  most  interesting  features  in  modern  Baptist  history,  that 
one  to  whom  the  whole  body  defers  with  so  much  and  so  deserved  respect,  has  consecrated 
the  evening  of  a  long  and  well-spent  life,  and  the  maturity  of  a  cultivated  and  profound 
intellect,  and  the  treasures  of  much  laboriouG  study,  to  the  preparation  of  these  essays, 
whicii  will  be  received,  not  by  the  denomination  only,  but  by  the  Christian  public,  as  a 
most  valuable  contribution  to  ecclesiastical  literature." 

VIRGINIA  BAPTIST  MINISTERS. 

By  James  B.  Taylor,  D.D. 

With  an  introduction  by  J.  B.  Jeter,  D.D. 

In  two  Series.     12mo.     Price  of  each  volume  $1.26. 

From  the  Mississippi  Baptist. 
"This  is  the  third  edition  of  a  work  which  has  been  in  our  library  for  several  years. 
It  consists  of  brief  sketches  of  the  deceased  Baptist  Ministers  of  Virginia.  It  was  first 
published  in  one  volume.  Its  author  has  extended  it  in  the  present  edition  to  two 
volumes  of  over  400  pages  each.  It  contains  many  sketches  that  were  not  in  previous 
editions,  in  all  225.  The  author  has  done  a  good  work,  by  thus  preserving  in  a  perma- 
nent form,  memorials  of  these  godly  men.  Virginia  is  not  only  the  mother  of  many 
eminent  statesmen,  but  it  may  be  said  without  disparaging  any  other  State,  that  she  has 
been  the  mother  of  many  ministers  too,  as  eminent  fur  their  piety,  as  for  their  usetulness. 
Of  these,  the  work  before  us  contains  short,  plain,  and  truthful  records.  The  book  should 
be  read  by  all  Baptists,  especially  all  Baptist  Ministers. 

WAT  MAEKS  to 

APOSTOLIC   BAPTISM; 

Or,  Historical  Testimonies  demonstrating  the  Original  Form  of  thb 

Rite  as  ordained  by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  administered 

By  his  Holy  Apostles. 

1  vol.     18mo.     Price,  35  cents. 

From  EioiiARD  Fuller,  D.D.,  of  Baltimore. 
"  As  a  brief  compendium  of  argument  which  might  fill  a  large  treatise  it  may  be  em- 
ployed most  effectually.     The  arrangement  seems  to  be  very  Judicious,  and  the  author 
has  shown  very  I'are  talents.     He  is  concise,  and  his  arguments  have  been  carefully  au- 
thenticated." 

From  D.  R.  Campbell,  D.D.,  President  of  Georgetoion  (Ktj.)  College. 
"  I  deem  it  a  perfect  Thesaurus  of  testimony  on  the  subject  of  which  it  treats.    It  will 
be  invaluable  in  the  hands  of  the  people  and  the  great  body  of  our  ministers." 

From  J.  B.  Jeter,  D.D.,  of  Richmond,  Va. 
"It  is  worthy  of  general  circulation,  and  especially  of  a  place  in  the  library  of  every 
Baptist  minister  who  has  not  access  to  the  numerous  and  rare  works  from  which  its  con* 
tentfl  are  selected.*' 


Books  Published  hy  Sheldon  c6  Co. 


FIFTY  YEAES  AMONG  THE  BAPTISTS. 

By  Datid  Benedict,  D.D.,  author  of  "  Benedict's  History  of  the  Baptists." 
1  vol.     12 mo.     Price  $1. 

From  the,  Watch7nan  and  Reflector . 
"  About  a  year  ago  the  venerable  and  excellent  author  of  the  present  volume  was  privi 
leged  with  a'goodly  number  of  friends  to  celebrate  '  his  golden  weilding,' — an  occasion 
■\vliich  declares  the  existence  of  the  marriage  tie  unbroken  by  death  for  half  a  century, 
it  will  be  seen,  therefore,  that  when  he  essays  to  write  of '  Fifty  Years  among  the  Bap- 
tists,' he  is  but  going  over  the  term  of  his  married  life.  The  book  is  divided  into  five 
decades,  forming  for  it  a  natural  and  fitting  division.  Under  each  of  these  is  given,  in  an 
easy,  familiar  style,  a  fund  of  observation,  of  experience  and  information  relating  to  the 
Baptist  denomination,  its  leading  men,  its  enterprises,  and  out-gro,vth  during  these  pe- 
riods. Few  men,  as  compared  with  Dr.  Benedict,  have  enjoyed  the  facilities  of  collect- 
ing, observing,  memorizing  so  much  that  is  worthy  of  preservation  and  record.  The 
book  should  find  its  ready  way  into  every  Baptist  library." 

From  the  Christian  Chronicle,  Philadelphia. 
"Dr.  Benedict,  in  his  fifty  years'  travel  with  the  Baptists  has  a  wonderful  history  to 
unfold.     His  brethren  will  rejoice  as  they  read  these  page-s  that  he  has  been  spared  long 
enough  to  tell  this  eventful,  interesting,  and  instructive  story." 

From  the  I^ew  York  Examiner. 
"  These  reminiscences  abound  in  illustrations  of  the  condition  of  our  churches  and 
ministers  as  they  were  long  ago,  and  also  indicate  the  origin  and  prosress  of  most  of  our 
institutions  of  benevolence  and  learning.     The  volume  contains  much  j)leasant  reading, 
and  will  prove  a  useful  addition  to  our  materials  for  Baptist  history." 

BENEDICT'S  HISTOKY  OF  THE  BAPTISTS. 

A  General  History  of  the  Baptist  Denomination  in  America,  and  other  Parts 

of  the  World.     By  David  Benedict. 
Containing  9t0  large  octavo  pages  in  one  volume,  bound  in  library  sheep. 

With  STEEL  PORTRAITS  OF  EOGBR  "WILLIAMS  AND  THE  AUTHOR.    PriCB  $3. 

This  complete  and  valuable  History  of  the  Baptist  Denomination  is  well  deserving  tlia 
large  sale  it  has  among  the  members  of  our  church. 

COMPENDIUM   OF   THE   FAITH   OF   THE 
BAPTISTS. 

*  Paper.    Price,  j)er  dozen,  50  cents. 

Every  church  should  get  a  supply  for  its  members. 

THE    YOUNG    MEN    OF    AMEKICA, 

A  Prize  Essay,    By  Sa^iuel  Batchelder,  Jr.  1  vol.  12mo.  Price  40  cents. 
From  tlie  Boston   Gazette. 
" His  essay  is  well  written  and  practical;  free  from  visionarj- ideas  or  sentimentality, 
but  with  an  earnest  purpose  in  view.     Its  tone  is  healthy,  its  style  clear  and  chaste,  and 
^it  can  be  read  both  with  pleasure  and  profit." 

From  the  Presbi/terian. 
"  It  is  worthy  of  the  distinction  it  has  attained,  and  deserves  the  consideration  of  young 


Books  Published  hj    Sheldon    d'    Co. 
SEKMONS. 

By  Richard  Fuller,  D.D.,  of  Baltimore. 

1  voL    12mo,  muslin.     Price  $1. 

From  the  New  York  Examiner. 
"  The  Sermons,  thougli  almost  exclusively  on  practical  topics,  and  seldom  invading  the 
realms  <3f  metaphysics,  will  compare  favorably  \rith  any  volume  of  sermons  in  cm 
knowledge.  In  thorough  mastery  of  the  topics  which  they  treat,  in  brilliancy  of  meta- 
phor, in  fertility  and  appropriateness  of  illustration,  in  entire  freedom  from  bombast  or 
stilted  phrase,  and  what  is  of  far  greater  importance  than  all  else,  in  the  clearness  and 
fullness  with  which  they  illustrate  the  character,  the  mission,  the  purposes,  and  the  attri- 
butes of  the  Divine  Redeemer,  we  regard  them  as  a  most  valuable  contribution  to  our 
pulpit  literature." 

From  the  Lutheran  Observer,  Baltimore. 

"  There  is  nothing  of  a  controversial  or  denominational  caste  in  them,  and  they  will  be 
read  with  interest  and  profit  by  all  Christians.  It  is  an  encouraging  sign  of  the  times 
that  the  demand  for  books  like  this  is  so  general  and  growing,  and  these  plain,  earnest 
and  searching  discourses  will  be  read  by  thousands.  The  book  will  be  a  valuable  acquisi- 
tion to  any  man's  library." 

From  the  South  Western  Baptist. 

"  Dr.  Fuller  has  a  reputation  as  a  pulpit  orator  unsurpassed.  Until  the  appearance  of 
this  volume,  but  few  of  liis  sermons  have  ever  been  committed  to  the  press.  The  enun- 
ciation of  a  volume  of  sermons  from  such  a  source  will  be  quite  gratifying  to  the  reading 
public." 

From  the  New  York  Chronicle. 

"  It  is,  indeed,  rarely  that  so  noble  a  volume  appears  on  our  table.  Let  those  who 
would  be  built  up  to  manly  strength  and  Christian  stature,  feed  upon  such  books  as  this ; 
whose  earnestness,  vigor,  and  density  of  style,  combine  with  devout  piety  and  doctrinal 
purity  to  rank  it  near  to  Robert  Hall.  Amid  the  mass  of  fluctuating  and  enervating  lit- 
erature, much  of  which,  for  a  certain  pious  intent  which  prevails  in  it,  we  must  doubt- 
fully commend,  such  a  strong  and  healthy  book  as  this  stands  like  a  tall  and  steadfast 
rock,  whose  summit  men  may  see  from  afar,  and  to  which  they  may  presently  anchor." 

LIFE  OF  SPENCER  H.  COKE,  D.D. 

"With  a  fine  Steel  Plate  Engraving. 
1  vol.  l2mo.    Price,  $1  25. 

*'  "Whose  heart  is  not  heavy  with  the  swelling  emotions  of  sorrow,  as  he  seeks  in  vain 
in  Ms  wonted  place  for  that  beloved  form,  whose  very  presence  in  our  meetings  was  a 
strength  and  a  joy;  and  the  thought  rises  that  he  shall  'see  his  face  no  more' — no  more 
hear  that  familiar  voice  which  ever  rung  like  a  clarion-peal  in  defense  and  advocacy  of 
the  highest  and  holiest  truth,  and  in  cheer  and  encouragement  to  its  faithful  friends,  and 
whose  very  name  was  a  guaranty  of  success  to  every  enterprise  and  principle  to  which  he 
gave  his  heart  and  coul  ?  May  God  have  mercy  on  the  man  who  can  cherish  anght  but 
honor,  love,  and  gratitude  for  the  character  and  services  of  S-^encer  H.  Cone." — Bible 
Union  Quarterly. 

"  As  this  work  has  been  prepared  under  the  immediate  inspection  of  the  family  of  Dr. 
Cone,  there  is  every  reason  to  beliere  that  it  will  be  a  complete,  accurate,  and  in  every 
way  reliable  memoir  of  our  lamented  brother,  and  we  fc«lieve  all  of  our  readers  ttUI  wiri 
to  posaess  H."— ¥ew  York  Ohrordde. 


Books  Published  by  Sheldon  c&   Co, 


THOENTON^S  FAMILY  PKAYERS  ; 

PEAYEES   ON  THE  TEN   COMMANDMENTS,  Etc. 
To  WHICH  IS  ADDED  A  FAMILY  COMMENTARY  OX  THE  SeRMON"  ON  THE  MOUNT, 

By  the  late  Henry  Thornton,  M.P.     Edited  by  Bishop  Eastburn. 
1  voL     12mo.    Plain,  15  cents.     Fine  edition,  red  edges,  $1. 

From  the  Episcopal  Recorder,  PhiladelpMa 

"This  collection  of  family  prayers  is  placed  in  England  as  the  most  faithful  and  reliable 
that  can  be  used,  and  we  cheerfully  anite  in  this  opinion.  The  present  edition  is  neat  and 
complete." 

From  the  Christian  Witness,  Boston. 

"This  is  a  new  and  neat  edition  of  one  of  the  best  volumes  of  family  prayers  which  has 
been  published.  It  has  been  long  and  favorably  known  in  this  country.  Probably  no 
published  volume  of  family  prayers  has  ever  been  the  vehicle  of  so  much  heartfelt  devo- 
tion as  these.    They  are  Tvhat  prayers  should  be — fervent,  and  yet  perfectly  simple." 

From  the  Echo,  Toronto. 
"The  prayers  .ire  expressive  of  deep  piety  tempered  with  a  sound  judgment,  the  lan- 
guage being  forcible  and  concise,  keeping  always  within  the  limits  of  sober  humility,  and 
never  intiated,  or  running  into  exaggeration.  They  appear  to  express  what  most  Christiana 
would  desire  to  say  when  kneeling  before  the  throne  of  grace,  and  what  most  would 
deem  appropriate  to  their  daily  wants  and  circumstances  both  of  body  and  soul." 


THE    PEICE    OF    SOUL    LIBERTY, 

AND  WHO   PAID  IT. 

By  Henry  C.  Pish,  D.D. 

1  Tol.     18mo.     Price,  40  cents. 

From,  the  Kew  York  Chronicle. 
"  This  little  book  contains  a  condensed  record  of  the  various  cases  in  which  the  Baptists 
have  in  various  ages  suffered  for  their  radical  idea  of  religion,  as  a  '  matter  of  intelligent 
con^;iction  and  voluntary  choice.'  As  %  denomination,  they  have  from  the  apostolic  age 
repelled  the  idea  of  a  religion  imposed  from  without,  by  the  act  of  parents,  by  hereditary 
succession,  priestly  manipulation,  or  any  thing  apart  from  the  personal  individual  self  of 
the  actor  or  worshiper,  in  repenting,  believing,  and  consecrating  his  life  and  services  to 
Christ,  by  a  voluntary  submission  to  baptism.  This  view  of  Christianity  has  in  all  ages 
been  the  great  antagonism  to  Church  and  State  establishments,  restraint  upon  personal 
freedom  in  matters  of  worship  or  of  belief,  and  to  the  union  of  those  born  after  the  flesh 
and  tliose  born  of  the  Spirit  in  outward  Church  organizations,  as  the  great  source  of 
corruption  and  apostacy  to  the  so-called  Christian  woVld.  And  as  the  opponents  of  this 
Baptist  view  of  soul-liberty  have  always  been,  and  are  to  this  day  in  the  majority,  our 
denomination  has  in  every  age  suffered  persecution,  and  are  still  the  objects  of  general 
dislike  and  distrust.  Though  the  book  is  a  compilation,  it  is  none  the  less  valuable,  and 
we  coramen^  it  to  the  universal  and  impartial  attention  of  the  public." 

THE  WOBDS  OF  JESUS  AND  THE  FAITHFUL 
PROMISEE. 

By  the  Author  of  "  Morning  and  Mght  "Watches." 
1  vol.    ISmo.     Price,  S8  centa. 


BooJcs  Published  hy  Sheldon  c&    Co. 


GKACE      TKUMAN; 

OR,  LOVE  AND  PRIXCIPLE. 

By  Sallie  RocnESTER  Ford.    With  Steel  Portrait  of  the  Authoress. 

1  vol.,  12mo.     Price  $1. 

"  "We  have  read  the  book  with  uncommon  interest.  The  tale  is  well  told,  and  its  de- 
velopment  is  natural.  It  is  intended  to  illustrate  the  trials  and  triumphs  of  a  young  wife 
in  maintaining  her  principles  against  the  intolerance  of  the  open  communion  friends  of 
her  husband ;  and  this  is  done  so  as  to  preserve  unfailing  freshness  in  the  narrative,  and 
to  throw  a  flood  of  light  on  the  principles  and  practices  of  the  Baptist  denomination.  '  We 
expect  to  hear  that  the  book  will  have  multitudes  of  readers." — Xmo  York  Examiner. 

"  This  is  truly  a  delightful  book.  Mrs.  Ford  has  thrown  around  a  young  bride— the 
Christian  heroine  of  this  fascinating  romance — such  severe,  and  yet  such  life-like  trials 
that  we  at  once  become  deeply  interested  in  her  behalf,  and  watch,  with  great  solicitude' 
the  result  of  the  struggle  between  Love  and  Principle,  as  we  follow  her  through  some  of 
the  most  trying  scenes." — Xew  York  Chronicle. 

"  This  work,  we  predict,  will  create  a  sensation  in  this  country  srch  as  has  attended 
the  issue  of  few  books  for  a  long  time,  and  its  popularity  must  exceed  that  of  any  other 
work  of  a  similar  kind  that  has  recently  appeared.  What  is  more  important  still,  it  is  a 
book  which  can  not  fail  to  do  good  wherever  it  is  circulated." — Western  Watchman. 

"  '  Grace  Truman'  is  another  religious  novel,  founded  on  facts,  as  any  one  may  see  who 
is  familiar  with  denominational  prejudice.  It  is  written  to  show  how  many  difficulties 
one  may  meet,  and  how  much  actual  persecution  they  may  endure,  in  the  attempt  to  fol- 
low out  what  they  conscientiously  may  believe  to  be  right.,  when  their  friends,  relatives, 
and  social  connections  believe  a  different  way.  Mrs.  Ford  has  skillfully  drawn  a  picture 
of  what  she  has  seen  and  known.  The  work  is  true  to  real  life,  and  therefore  it  wiU  be 
read." — Mothers"  Journal. 

"  We  have  been  borne  through  the  perusal  of  this  book  with  unflagging  interest.  Like 
'  Theodosia  Ernest,'  it  is  designed  for  the  illustration  and  defense  of  our  denominational 
principles ;  and  without  detracting  in  the  slightest  from  the  enviable  reputation  of  that 
work,  we  do  not  hesitate  to  pronounce  this  more  ornate  in  style,  more  artistic  in  plot, 
more  thrilling  in  incident.  It  can  not  fail  of  a  wide  popularity  and  an  extensive  circula- 
tion."— Relifiious  Herald. 

"  We  must  not  overlook,  as  occupying  no  minor  position  among  the  dramatis  2^'>^sonce 
of  the  story.  Aunt  Pefjgij,  an  old,  pious,  shrewd  domestic,  and  a  Baptist  all  over,  inside 
and  outside,  with  strong  faith  in  the  promises  and  providence  of  God.  She  talks,  looks, 
and  acts  like  a  pious  slave  of  an  elevated  Chinstian  character,  and  is  allowed  great  liberties 
with  Chi-istian  people.  Talk  about  the  negro  caricatures  in  'Uncle  Tom's  Cabin!'  ^  The 
authoress  of  '  Grace  Truman'  was  born  and  brought  up  with  this  race,  and  enjoying  a 
chastened  as  well  as  a  hixuriant  imagination,  has  drawn  truthful  and  life-like  characters 
in  all  her  portraits.  This  book  should  be  extensively  eirculated.  Pastors  should  see  to 
it  that  it  goes  into  every  Baptist  family." — Rev.  John  M.  Peck.,  D.D. 

SONGS  AND  BALLADS  FOE  THE  HOME 
AND  HOUSEHOLD. 

By  Sidney  Dyer. 
1  volume.    With  Steel  Portrait.    Price  75  cents. 

"A  book  of  mark  in  the  field  of  poesy." — Correspondent  of  Watchman  an(P Reflector. 

"  Mr.  Dyer  is  evidently  a  poet — not  a  poet  on  stilts — nor  a  poet  without  common  senso 
brains,  nor  does  he  fly  away  from  every-day  life  on  the  wings  of  imagination— but  sings 
of  things  familiar — things  of  the  household,  such  as  come  to  the  heart  and  affections  of  us 
aU.     Mr.  Dyer  has  added  to  the  stock  of  our  Uterary  vrea.lth.'" -^Chicago  Democrat. 

"  Excellent  of  its  kind.  They  grow  out  of  the  experience  of  life,  and  teach  us  to  do 
bravely  in  the  battle  of  life." — Chicago  Tribune. 

"  We  have  read  with  the  keenest  enjoyment  many  of  the  pieces  in  the  volume,  some  of 
them  with  a  tear  standing  in  our  eye." — Western  Christian  Advocate. 

"•  These  sweet  lyrics  of  Dyer  ought  to  be  in  every  family.  They  are  so  pure  and  musical 
•—so  full  of  home  affections  and  memories — that  they  renew  within  us  the  feelings  and 
joys  of  childhood.  Taking  up  this  volume  after  the  toils  of  the  day,  late  in  the  evening, 
we  went  on  reading  and  reading,  unconscious  of  the  passing  hours,  until,  roused  from  a 
sweet  reverie,  we  found  it  was  past  the  hour  of  midnight  We  most  heartily  thank  the 
pablishers  for  sending  us  this  volume  of  songs  and  ballads." — Lutheran  Home  Jownal. 


> 


